Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask to speak for up to 1 hour.

Today, there is a celebration in Alaska. Tonight is the 144th anniversary of Alaska Day. This is the day that commemorates the first raising of the Stars and Stripes over Lord Baranof's castle in Sitka, AK. At the time, Sitka was called New Archangel. Until that moment, it was the capital of Russian America.

We celebrate Alaska's statehood today, October 18, and we also celebrate our 52-year-old compact with the United States and its promise to grant Alaskans the opportunity to participate equally with the other States of the Union. Together with Hawaii, statehood for Alaska marked the last chapter in America's great westward expansion. Of course, that expansion began well before Alaska's statehood, well before the purchase from Russia. It goes back to Thomas Jefferson's Northwest Ordinance, which promised an equal footing for a State government to stand on its own and to make that leap out of territorial status. This resulted in States such as Ohio and Indiana forming as sovereign governments with the Federal Government, relinquishing almost all control over the lands within those borders. So people came to live, to build their lives in these new States; and with their new lives came the infrastructure--the roads, bridges, factories, and the industry.

That set things in motion for expansion into the Far West frontier States such as Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, and Montana. And then gold in California and Colorado brought an urgency to the expansion. We saw the railroads that helped accelerate and accommodate it.

In times past, the terms began to change. Precedents were increasingly set for vast Federal land withdrawals in the form of national forests, monuments, parks, and preserves. The promise and definition of ``equal footing'' changed during these times. Ultimately, more States had more of an equal footing than others, as we saw the newest western States would soon have to contend with Federal land managers.

None of this, though, took away from the hope that Alaskans felt when Secretary of State William Seward negotiated the purchase of Alaska from Tsar Nicholas, and he negotiated this purchase for $7.2 million. We are talking a lot about money nowadays, and usually we are talking in billions rather than millions. Think about it. The purchase of Alaska came at the price of $7.2 million. That is about 2 cents an acre, which is clearly a deal under anybody's terms.

Back in Sitka today, this day is always commemorated by the town's biggest parade of the year as a time of

celebration, when many Alaskans remember the hope they felt for a brighter future when we became the 49th State in the Union back in 1959. In 1959, I was only a year old, and so when President Eisenhower signed that statehood act into law, it didn't have much of an impression at that point in time. But I have felt--and I still feel--I have grown up with Alaska, that we have both matured over the years. Those who know me know I can go on and on extolling the virtues of my State--something as simple as potatoes. I will brag that while we might not have the biggest potatoes in the country, ours are germ free. We are bigger, better, and we have more sun, more darkness, and it is colder, and it is warmer. We are a land of extremes. We are an incredible place.

Alaska is unparalleled in its beauty and its potential. There has always been something that is very classically American about Alaska. It is truly our Nation's last frontier--a place where it is still possible for adventurous men and women to live the greatest version of the American dream. I think that is what draws so many people to our State. They still believe there is a place where you can live on the edge of a lot of possibility, and that continues to make us a remarkable place to be.

Statehood itself was a dream for many years among our pioneers and native people. It didn't come quickly and certainly not easily. Prior to statehood, we only had territorial status in the United States. That left us without any votes here in the Congress. We weren't entitled to receive funding for many programs, including highways. We were at the mercy of the generosity of the Federal Government. We were at the mercy of those out-of-State interests, which had locked in a foothold over many of our resources.

I was born and raised in southeastern Alaska. My grandparents raised their families there. I can remember the stories about the push for statehood, stemming from the desire to control our fisheries--the salmon wars that went on at that time.

Ultimately, statehood came about after 92 long years and only after heroic efforts from a great many individuals--too many to do justice this evening. But for purposes of my statement tonight, I want to invoke three names that some in this town and some in this Chamber may still remember.

The first is our former Governor and Senator Ernest Greuning, whose seat in this Chamber I am humbled to hold. Senator Gruening was an intellectual titan, the consummate public servant. He was an alumnus of Harvard Medical School, a prolific journalist who served as editor to both the New York Tribune and the magazine The Nation. He also contributed to the Atlantic Monthly.

In the epic novel ``Alaska,'' written by James Michener, he credited Senator Gruening with publicizing the cause for Alaskan statehood at the national level. He called him ``perceptive and gifted.'' As a testament to his legacy, Ernest Greuning's statue now stands just a few steps away from here in the Capitol Visitor Center.

Another individual, a man who truly built our State, was Wally Hickel, a former Governor. He was the man with whom President Nixon was so impressed that he named him as his Secretary of the Interior.

Wally was a former boxer from Kansas. He arrived in Alaska with--the legend goes--about 37 cents in his pocket. He rose to prominence in both business and politics. He was at the forefront of negotiating statehood. He understood the critical balance between the Federal interests and the State interests, between the corporate interests and the public interests.

Governor Hickel is important to this conversation because Alaska is where he saw and realized the American dream, all the while with a clear eye and vision toward the future of our State. We lost Wally Hickel last spring, but his writings and his vision clearly continue to guide our State.

A third name I want to bring up this evening is a man I was privileged to work for and to serve with, and that is the late Senator Ted Stevens.

I hold Senator Stevens--or Uncle Ted, as many in the State referred to him--in great personal and professional regard. He was a World War II pilot, a Harvard lawyer, who served as prosecutor in the territorial days. He was a congressional liaison to President Eisenhower. He was an attorney for the Interior Department. Much of the leg work that is associated with statehood was Ted's, and much of what Alaska has become is directly attributable to his work here in this Chamber.

Ted's work and his influence carried so much farther beyond Alaska. His work in matters of national defense, telecom, and fisheries shaped national and global politics. He was truly larger than life. He made Alaska matter in a way that nobody could have imagined. Without him, it is indisputable that we would not have the opportunities we have now.

The reason I invoke these names is to remind my colleagues about the consequential nature, the gravitas of great men and women who made sure that Alaska became our 49th State. These were exceptional Americans with an exceptional vision. They qualified as the founding fathers of my home State. They knew what Thomas Jefferson knew at the time of the Northwest Ordinance--that the new State of Alaska didn't have the population at the time and wasn't likely to get the population; that they didn't have the infrastructure to support an economy, and that it would not succeed without open access to this huge natural resource base. This is why they negotiated 104 million acres of pure State land and a 90-percent share of revenues from resource development on Federal lands, compared to the 50 percent that is enjoyed by the rest of the States.

There was no clear path to Alaska's self-sufficiency without these terms. As a matter of fact, there still isn't. In 1958, the U.S. Senate's official committee report on the Alaska Statehood Act promised Alaska that it would be given great latitude to develop its resources. It read:

Some of the additional costs connected with statehood will

be met by granting the State a reasonable return from Federal

exploitation of resources within the new State. In the past,

the United States has controlled the lion's share of

resources and, in some instances, retained the lion's share

of the proceeds. This situation, though, has not proved

conducive to development of the Alaskan economy. The

committee deems it only fair that when the State relieves the

United States of most of its expense burden, the State should

receive a realistic portion of the proceeds from resources

within its borders.

There is more to this. Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton, while in Alaska in the summer of 1958, said that the statehood compact ``reaffirms Alaska's preferential treatment in receiving 90 percent of all revenues from oil, gas, and coal leasing on public domain.'' In Fairbanks, he went further, promising ``since early this year, the territory has received 90 percent of all these oil lease revenues, and the State of Alaska will continue to do so.''

These statements are remarkably clear. Alaska would be allowed to develop these resources and receive most of the revenues from that development. I truly wish I could stand here tonight, all these years later, and say these promises have been upheld. I wish I could go to sleep tonight or any night knowing the Federal Government had kept its promises to the people of Alaska and that my children and their children will surely see our State continue to prosper and come into its own.

But the reality is that Alaska's relationship with the Federal Government has become strained. The Federal Government has always had a significant presence in the last frontier, from the first Alaska Day to this one. But today, at a time when Alaskans need the Federal Government to act as our partner, it has become an obstacle. Its default position is no longer to enable prosperity for Alaskans. More often than not, the Federal Government now delays or denies those opportunities.

That leaves me concerned about the future of my State, not because of the global economy, not because of high unemployment levels, but because of the treatment we receive at the hands of our own Federal Government.

I am here today to say that this treatment cannot go on like this. I want to ensure that my colleagues in the Senate understand why.

I have asked for a large block of time tonight, and I don't usually take a lot of floor time, particularly to go back into history. But this is important to not only my State's past but my State's future.

I wish to explain some of what we are dealing with. Some of this may not be

easy for some to see. Some believe that Alaska--and the rest of the country, for that matter--is past the point where we need to develop our resources. Many of our newer Members may not understand the promises that were made to Alaska upon statehood. Therefore, they don't understand what has been happening since then.

Adding to the complication is that our resource options have been greatly restricted over the course of decades, not individual months or even years. So to understand what has changed, we can't look back to the start of this administration.

I will not single out the President and the administration and say you are not letting us do something. The fact is that we have to go back many administrations. We have to go all the way back to the late 1970s, a time when much of Alaska had already been withdrawn into Federal wilderness status. President Carter and his Interior Secretary had decided that, well, that wasn't enough. They designated over 56 million more acres of new national monuments, 40 million more acres of wildlife refuges, and 11 million more acres of restricted national forest. Now that in and of itself would have been unprecedented, unprecedented in terms of the amount of land for the Federal Government to unilaterally withdraw if it were nationwide, but this land was all in Alaska. Every acre of it was in Alaska. So, not surprisingly, this came over the State's objection.

Congress reacted to this tremendous Federal overreach so that Alaska's Senators and lone Congressman, together with a few sympathetic colleagues, could at least try to control that impact. That negotiated truce was the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. We call it ANILCA for short. In no uncertain terms, ANILCA was a compromise. It was clearly a compromise.

For his part, when he signed ANILCA into law, President Carter stated:

100 percent of the offshore areas and 95 percent of the

potentially productive oil and mineral areas will be

available for exploration or for drilling.

Again, that is President Carter saying that 100 percent of offshore areas and 95 percent of potentially productive oil and mineral areas will be available for exploration or for drilling--a pretty strong statement, and it seemed pretty clear and very reassuring at the time of this compromise. But today it stands as probably the worst broken promise the Federal Government has ever made to the State of Alaska. As the Department of the Interior reported just this past spring, less than 1 percent--less than 1 percent--of Federal lands in Alaska is currently producing oil or natural gas. I would suggest that is an indictment. A significant portion of our lands have been placed off limits, and then where development is allowed, it is often stalled by Federal redtape. That is wrong. It is wrong, it is unacceptable, and it is to the detriment of both Alaska and our Nation as a whole.

Alaska is nearly 4,000 miles from where we are here in Washington, DC. I know because I log that trip on Alaska Airlines quite frequently. I know that what makes news back home doesn't always make news here. So I would like to use part of my time tonight to provide the Senate with some of the many examples of how resource development in my home State is being held back. Let's start with mining.

Back in 2009, the EPA attempted to halt the Kensington Gold Mine from proceeding in southeast Alaska, and this happened after two decades-- two decades--of agency review and legal challenges. It happened even though the Supreme Court had ruled that a crucial permit for the mine was indeed valid. But the EPA was so unhappy with this decision, it jumped back in. It sought to nullify the plan that had just held up to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. This was not the Alaska Supreme Court, this was the U.S. Supreme Court. This was not an effort to protect the environment by the EPA. The EPA proposal was demonstrably worse for the environment. This was an effort to stop the mine at all costs, regardless of the consequences for the local economy or the hundreds of Alaskans who were depending on jobs from this particular mine.

More recently, we have seen Senators within this body from other States challenge a mine that could one day be located in southwest Alaska. Those Senators have asked the EPA to consider a preemptive veto of the mine. This is even before a plan has been proposed. I have said that a preemptive veto makes no more sense than a preemptive approval and that we should provide a robust environmental review when and if a permit application is going to be submitted.

I will remind everyone here that we don't have a habit of hastily approving mines in this country. In fact, we rank dead last--dead last--among all the countries in the world in the amount of time it takes to review permits. This mine will have to secure at least 67 different permits, approvals, and authorizations from Federal, State, and local governments. That represents about 67 chances for the mine to be delayed, modified, or halted. But some apparently believe that process is still not sufficient.

Now let's talk about timber and the wholesale destruction of the timber industry in southeast Alaska. At this point, I feel once again as though I need to put my Alaska bona fides out there and remind everybody how big Alaska is. We are more than twice the size of Texas. People forget that. We have a lot of room up there. We could produce a tremendous portion of our Nation's timber and pulp if we were only allowed to do so. We could do that while leaving the vast majority of our lands untouched. But that hasn't been possible. Southeast Alaska is nearly all Federal lands, so our ability to conduct logging there is very heavily dependent on the Federal Government's willingness to grant access.

When ANILCA passed, the timber industry, in return for accepting the creation of more than 5 million acres of new national monuments closed to timber harvesting, was assured that the Forest Service would make 450 million board feet of timber available in the future--half of what was being produced prior to the bill's passage. We accepted that as a compromise. ANILCA also guaranteed $40 million worth of funding each year for road building, for precommercial thinning to allow the existing industry to survive on a smaller land base.

So you might ask the question, what happened? Alaska's timber industry has not thrived. It struggles. Go down to the southeast and talk to people in Ketchikan or out in Thorne Bay, and it is worse than struggling. They are on life support. They are struggling to survive as outside forces repeatedly attempt to shut it down. At the urging of the Washington, DC, environmental community, the funding within ANILCA was repealed and the allowable harvest level was cut in half again over the following decade. But even that reduced amount of logging seems expansive today because the Forest Service has made far less than 50 million board feet available for timber harvest within the past 3 years. So far this year, the Forest Service has amazingly sold just 2 million board feet of new timber offerings. This is a dramatic decline for an industry that once provided thousands of well-paying jobs for residents in southeast Alaska, as well as the revenue that came in and, by the way, some really world-class quality wood and pulp resources for the rest of our country.

Given these restrictions, it probably comes as no surprise that employment in the industry has plummeted from about 6,000 total jobs in 1980 to where we are today, which is about 450, and that includes all of the support structure as well. So for those of us who grew up in the Tonkas--I was born in Ketchikan and raised in places such as Juneau and Wrangell--to see an economy be truly just cut off to the point that it is no longer existent because of Federal policies is very difficult to deal with.

Then, of course, we can take a look at Alaska's oil and gas industry, which currently provides nearly 90 percent of the revenues for Alaska's State budget and historically as much as 20 percent of our Nation's petroleum supply. We are pretty proud of this. We feel as though we have done a pretty good job. Here more than anywhere else we see the scope and the consequences of Federal decisions to restrict resource development.

Just to put things in context so that people know what I am talking about--and I don't have the rest of the country on here, Mr. President, because that

chart is coming later--in understanding where Alaska's resources lie, I think it helps to understand the management and the division within our State in terms of our lands. I don't expect most can see this map, but it is kind of a jumble of colors. What I will direct your attention to--and those who are looking at this--is all of the green areas, which are Forest Service, and the orange and tan areas are our BLM parklands. The areas that are in blue are the State lands. The small areas where you have red are areas held in private lands, whether it is Native lands or whether it is held in private lands.

Up here, in the National Petroleum Reserve at the top of the State, is an area that Congress explicitly designated--they have singled out and explicitly designated--for producing oil. But Federal regulators will not allow a simple bridge to be built over a remote river, and without this bridge, it is not possible or it is exceptionally difficult to begin commercial production. So you have production within a National Petroleum Reserve that is remaining off limits at this moment.

I have asked the question--and it is not a rhetorical question but one clearly worth repeating--if we can't get petroleum from the National Petroleum Reserve, from where can we get it? This is an area that was specifically designated by the Congress. Yet we are being held up from accessing this because we cannot get approval to place a bridge over the Colville River. So we continue to work this because it is extraordinary that we would be held up these many years.

Offshore, in the Beaufort and the Chukchi, are areas estimated to contain more than 20 billion barrels of oil. Production in these areas could help us refill our pipeline, which is running dangerously low, and create many thousands of good-paying jobs. But Federal regulators have held this up over really, of all things, air permits needed for exploratory operations to begin miles offshore in the Arctic Ocean. We have seen some steps in the right direction, and that is good. But the fact is, drilling has been canceled each of the last four seasons, and next year is still uncertain.

I had an opportunity to quiz Director Bromwich today. He is trying to give me the assurance that this might be on track for next season. But it has been almost 5 years and cost almost $4 billion, all in an effort to get to the point where we can proceed to begin exploration. Alaska has already lost hundreds of jobs and millions in revenues because of these federally imposed delays.

Of course, I cannot not talk about Alaska's oil and gas resources without discussing Alaska's coastal plain, which is this area right over here adjoining Canada. We have an area up north that is estimated to hold 10.4 billion barrels of oil. This is the mean estimate, so it is quite possibly much more than that. I have sponsored legislation to allow responsible development in the nonwilderness portion--not in the wilderness portion--of ANWR. We are not going to touch the wilderness portion, just the nonwilderness portion of ANWR. I have offered this for several Congresses now.

But even limiting that development to 0.1 percent of the refuge has proven unacceptable to many Members of this Chamber. We repeatedly hear from others that this area is too sensitive, despite Alaska's very strong record of environmental stewardship in nearby Prudhoe Bay. We repeatedly hear it is just going to take too long for this oil to come to market. They will say it is going to take 10 years to get ANWR oil. That is too long.

The ``10 years away'' argument has been made for over 20 years now. So instead of continuing to delay, let's figure out how we make this happen. But instead of any promotion in Congress and from the Fish and Wildlife Service, we face efforts to put all the Coastal Plain into permanent wilderness restriction.

To anyone who thinks the nonwilderness portion of ANWR was never meant for energy development, I would point you to President Eisenhower's original designation creating not a refuge but the Arctic Range. I would also remind you that President Eisenhower had both an assistant to the Secretary of the Interior Department and a congressional liaison, and that individual was named Ted Stevens. Ted was in the room with Interior Secretary Seaton, drafting the Executive order for the Arctic Range Conservation Program. If you think he would have considered locking up Alaska's resources, I don't think you know him as I did.

The order clearly provided that oil and gas development would be permitted so long as there were reasonable protections in place for the flora and the fauna. I would encourage any of my colleagues, look up this Executive order of December 6, 1960, if you have any further questions.

For all of its broken promises, ANILCA is still law, and it contains two very important provisions that were negotiated by Senator Stevens. The first is for an oil and gas exploratory program to occur in the 1002 Area. This is this small portion of the Coastal Plain that I have sought to open. But I wish to repeat this. Existing law provides for oil and gas exploration, and exploratory drilling has already occurred in ANWR. In fact, in the two winters in 1984 and 1985, seismic exploration was conducted along 1,400 miles of survey lines in ANWR. There were several companies that were also permitted to conduct other geologic studies, such as surface rock sampling and mapping and some geochemical testing. This resulted in a report from the Interior Department based on what it learned about the resource and the ability to develop it responsibly, recommending that Congress take the next step and authorize oil and gas leasing for the entire 1002 Area.

We have to ask the question: Why is this relevant? To begin with, it is worth noting that the current law already provides for exploratory drilling in ANWR. All that is prohibited is development leading to production. I doubt many people realize we have actually already authorized drilling in ANWR, and Congress's real decision is to decide whether we leave the oil in there or whether we let it come to market.

The second major provision in ANILCA is probably better known. It is called the ``no more'' clause, and we talk about it a lot in Alaska. It is an express prohibition on any more wilderness withdrawals in Alaska. Included is a congressional finding that Alaska has unequivocally contributed enough of its lands to conservation purposes. I am going to quote directly from this law. It has been upheld in court, it remains in place today, and it provides as follows:

This act provides sufficient protection for the national

interests in the scenic, natural, cultural, and environmental

values on the public lands in Alaska, and at the same time

provides adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the

economic and social needs of the State of Alaska and its

people. Accordingly, the designation and disposition of the

public lands in Alaska pursuant to this Act are found to

represent a proper balance between the reservation of

national conservation system units and those public lands

necessary and appropriate for more intensive use and

disposition. And, thus, Congress believes that the need for

future legislation designating new conservation system units,

new national conservation areas, or new national recreation

areas has been obviated thereby.

I don't think it could be any more clear than that. It troubles me a great deal when people in Washington then take it upon themselves to look for more wilderness in Alaska.

In 2004, the General Services Administration reported that more than 60 percent of Alaska was owned by the Federal Government--about 250 million acres in total. Again, if we look at the map, outside of the blue areas, pretty much all that we are seeing the green, the kind of tan, the orange, these are all Federal areas. So about 250 million acres are owned by the Federal Government. Compare that with some of the other States.

I don't mean to pick on the smaller States, but Connecticut, 0.4 percent of Connecticut, about 14,000 Federal acres. New York is 0.8 percent, about 230,000 acres. Illinois is 1.8 percent. They have about 640,000 Federal acres. But, again, according to that report, the State of Alaska has about 250 million acres of land under Federal control.

So we would say: Where are their private lands? Less than 1 percent of Alaska's lands are privately held. People have a tough time with that because they think: They have so much land. They have so much acreage. It is so huge. Surely, they must have some of that in private land.

It is less than 1 percent. It begs the question, when we are looking to add more wilderness, how fair is it to look to Alaska for more wilderness, when we have some 250 million acres in Federal control already, more wilderness in Alaska, in one State, than in the rest of the Nation combined? It is an important question to be asked.

We would at least suppose that the vast areas where Alaska cannot develop our resources would give us a silver lining of more recreational access. I know the Chair enjoys the great outdoors, as do I, and we like to get out and hike and be part of what we have with the land. But with Alaska's land management, even access to our lands makes it complicated, and that promise too has been broken.

Under ANILCA, Alaska's outdoor recreational enthusiasts were promised access to the 120 million acres of new parks, refuges, and wilderness areas. Again, whether it is our Forest Service lands, our Park Service lands, our refuge lands, it was all promised that, OK, it is there. It is for all to enjoy. But as we feared, soon after the bill was passed, after ANILCA passed, Federal agencies closed access. They closed access by snow machines, they closed access by road, and they closed access by plane to some of the lands. In other words, we can enjoy access, we can enjoy this if we can walk there. That is good for those of us who are still able-bodied, and we are much stronger when we are going up those mountains. But the fact is, it is limited if we can't access it by any other means other than walking there.

The access further went when Glacier Bay was shut off to commercial fishing entirely. It especially hurt where Alaskans, whose property then became in-holdings within these new conservation areas, they faced regulations just 5 years after this law was passed that made permission for access into their lands much more difficult, clearly, much more expensive, and sometimes shutting them out altogether. To this day, I deal with constituents who are out here in the McCarthy area, a great park area, but there are in-holdings, private in-holdings. But in order to gain access to their property that is rightly theirs--and the Federal Government recognizes it--they say: They can be there, but we are going to make it extraordinarily difficult for them to gain access to their own property.

So the promise that we as Alaskans would be able to enjoy this incredible land we have, even that has been hindered.

I have chosen to speak about these broken promises today because I wish to make clear that both history and the law point squarely to Alaska's right to the use and enjoyment of its lands. While the law should be well enough, we can't forget why good public policy weighs in favor as well.

The decisions to block Alaskan development have come to a head at the worst possible time. We have high unemployment. We have record Federal debt. We have global financial distress. Alaska could help on all these fronts. We stand ready to create tens of thousands of jobs. We can create hundreds of billions of dollars in new Federal revenues. We can help relieve the staggering costs our Nation pays for foreign oil, but we need permission from the Federal Government.

At times it seems that many in this Chamber have forgotten why we need to produce our natural resources in the first place. The answer is pretty simple: It leads to economic growth, it leads to prosperity, and it helps us compete in a rapidly changing world. But because we have slowed down resource production, because we have locked down so much of our lands, our Nation is increasingly--and I believe needlessly--facing scarcity issues and dependency, dependent on foreign sources, for so many of the resources we depend upon. In terms of many of these crucial resources, whether it be energy, timber, minerals, Alaska is not just the last frontier; it is truly the best option.

I am not overstating the case to say that much of our Nation's competitiveness rests on our ability to access our resources. Right now, though, we are constantly blocked. Production is happening all around us. Just look at what is going on. We had a hearing today in the Energy Committee discussing what is happening offshore of Cuba. It is not just happening offshore of Cuba. It is offshore in Russia. It is offshore in Canada. It is down in Mexico. It is in Cuba. We can look to China for our rare earth elements, but why would we do that when we have the prospects in this country in Alaska? Alaska has these resources.

The positive benefits that would result if we reversed the current dynamic are not up for debate. Countless studies clearly show that development in Alaska, because of its grand scale and high resource values, will create jobs and economic benefits for literally every single State--for the Chair's State of Colorado, for all our States. This does not require clear-cutting the State or drilling every inch of our State or every acre or every region--not even close. We are asking to pursue development on a very small amount of land, especially when we consider Alaska's prolific standards.

To put it into context of the whole, and I hope everyone can see the outline of the lower 48 States here and Alaska is superimposed. I didn't put Alaska in the middle there because it looks better in the middle. What I am trying to show is, this is a proportionate picture of how Alaska, if it were superimposed over the lower 48--where we extend to: all the way in southeastern Ketchikan over here, which sits in Florida, to fully the furthest part of the west coast, which is the Aleutian Islands, all the way down here, going all the way up to the North and into the South.

The reality is, Alaska is a State the size of which can't easily be measured or even understood. As I mentioned, its most distant points stretch from Florida to California. Lay it across the continental United States like this, and people say we must be making it up.

Mr. President, you have had the opportunity to travel to my State. You appreciate that when you are flying in an airplane for hours and still looking down and realizing, I am still flying over the same State--you can appreciate the size and scope of what we are dealing with. Within this area lies a tremendous natural resource base, conventional and nonconventional, renewable and nonrenewable.

When you see Alaska on a map, you never see it represented in proportionate size. You never realize just how unbelievably large it is. Unfortunately, for years when I was in school, Alaska was always in a little box down off of California or off of Mexico, that little piece down there. Our kids did not know where the exact spot on the map was. They did not know the size. We are continuing to educate and educate in an important way because it does make a difference.

Before I go off this chart, I want to again put in context the management issues we deal with. Look at this green area. This would be about 64 percent of Alaska under Federal management. State management is about 24.5 percent, about 90 million acres; 10 percent is Native held; and then less than 1 percent, about 1 million acres, is in private hands. That gives you an appreciation of what it is we are dealing with.

Mr. President, you and I have had an opportunity to talk about some of the truly magical places you have enjoyed in Alaska. I appreciate your perspective and the special places you have been. There is no argument--you will not find argument from this Alaskan--that major portions of Alaska are truly worth protecting and should not be developed. Those are some pretty spectacular areas. You may see them advertised. Oftentimes you will have environmental groups that will advertise them. The photographs may or may not always reflect the actual proposed sites, but they are beautiful. We will not ever dispute that they are beautiful.

The current Deputy Secretary of the Interior has said we are not going to drill in our pristine wilderness any more than we are going to build a dam in the Grand Canyon. We are not proposing that, not by any legal or commonsense definition.

We have in our State five major oil-bearing regions that remain nonproducing. We have a pipeline that is dwindling at one-third of its capacity. This pipeline literally bisects the State of Alaska. It is the spinal cord of our State's economy. It is a critical artery for America's energy security. Right now, that pipeline is running low, it is running slow, and we are being prevented from accessing the resources to

build it up. We have negotiated, pleaded, and begged for access to our resources for more than a generation. We have even been willing to sacrifice some of the revenues Alaska is clearly entitled to by law, and it has fallen on positively deaf ears here in Washington, even at a time when those dollars would mean quite a lot in terms of avoiding painful tax hikes or program cuts. When you look back on the past 50 years, it is more than a little astonishing that opposition to development continues to be so just dug in.

I think what has been borne out from Alaska's resource development is a very strong record of environmental stewardship. We have produced our natural resources for generations. For my entire life there, we have been producing our resources, whether it is our timber, whether it is our fisheries, whether it is mining and now oil. We have produced them for generations, and we have preserved our pristine qualities and the natural beauty perfectly. We are a world-class vacation destination for everyone who wants to come up on the big cruise ships, to those who want to do the ecotourism. We are a genuine paradise for the trophy fisherman, for the hunters who want to come to Alaska. We have a fish and game management program that is the most productive, the most sustainable model for the entire world.

I have people tell me: The one thing I want to do before I die is go to Alaska and see it. So if we have been producing all of our resources for all these years, for all these generations--if we really had been doing that terrible of a job, why does everybody want to see this incredibly beautiful land we have? I suggest it is because we have been doing a pretty good job of resource development as we have gone along the course.

Resource production has yielded substantial social and economic benefits to the State. More than 16 billion barrels of oil have been sent to the lower 48, with minimal environmental impact. Our oil also supplies refineries near Fairbanks and Anchorage. It allows us to serve as an international cargo hub. Our refineries produce the fuel for fighter jets and other military needs at our four bases. The strategic value of Alaska's geographical position--we sit literally at the top of the world there--for military purposes alone is sufficient to justify access to the resource, even if we were to ignore the jobs, ignore the revenue and the energy security benefits that come along with it. Yet, as I stand here today, virtually every extractive industry in Alaska has been disrupted by the Federal Government. Mining, timber, oil and gas--all these productions are well below or well behind the levels that would best serve Alaska and our country. No matter the project, it seems we have to fight the Federal Government for access and permission every single step of the way.

Federal agencies are attempting to subvert Supreme Court decisions. Senators from other States are attempting to halt mines that have not even been proposed. Permits are delayed, they are withheld, and they are outright refused. Drilling cannot take place in places Congress has explicitly designated for drilling, including our National Petroleum Reserve.

At the root of these troubles really is Alaska's treatment by the Federal Government. Because we have so much land and because we do depend on the development of these lands to thrive as a State, Alaska's future truly rests in the Federal Government's hands. But at the very moment--at the time when we most need the Federal Government to be acting as our partner, it has become an obstacle to progress and to our prosperity. The promises that were made at statehood and under ANILCA seem to be remembered only by Alaskans.

So it is apparent to me that the system of Federal land management and land use that used to work has now turned against us. Instead of facilitating new development and working to ensure it is carried out responsibly, the Federal Government now routinely denies our opportunities and locks up Alaska's lands. No matter where we look, we face this gauntlet of land use and environmental statutes that have been twisted into permitting delays, project denials, endless litigation. Put at risk is the sound economy we have worked very hard to build, the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Alaskans, and our ability to live up to our obligation at statehood to remain financially solvent as a State. We are in this position for, I believe, one reason, and that is because the promises that were made to Alaska by the Federal Government have been broken. We have asked nicely--perhaps too nicely--for a long time for those promises to be honored.

So, before I close, I would like to draw one more quotation from Senator Gruening, of whom I spoke earlier. This is a rather lengthy quote, but it is one worth hearing. Senator Gruening states:

We Alaskans believe passionately that American citizenship

is the most precious possession in the world. Hence we want

it in full measure; full citizenship instead of half-

citizenship; first class instead of second class citizenship.

We demand equality with all other Americans and the liberties

long denied us that go with it. To adapt Daniel Webster's

famous phrase uttered as a peroration against impending

separatism, we Alaskans want ``liberty and union, one and

inseparable, now and forever.''

But the keepers of Alaska's colonial status should be

reminded that the 18th century colonials for long years

sought merely to obtain relief from abuses, for which they--

like us--vainly pleaded, before finally resolving that only

independence would secure for them the ``life, liberty and

pursuit of happiness,'' which they felt was their natural

right.

We trust that the United States will not, by similar

blindness to our rights and deafness to our pleas, drive

Alaskans from patient hope to desperation.

That is pretty lofty language, I grant you, but I think it is suited. I think it is suited to this conversation this evening. Just as Ernest Gruening had to have this same fight from this same Chamber over 50 years ago, I am compelled to remind this body that the greatness of this Nation, the ultimate and true greatness of the experiment, depends on the greatness of the individual States which comprise it. As we look at our States and what they are capable of achieving, I would bet Alaska's potential against any other.

Today, on the 144th anniversary of Alaska Day, I ask the Senate to just think, to consider the promises that were made to the State of Alaska, to realize that those promises have not been kept but broken to the detriment of both Alaska and our Nation as a whole. This must be changed with the realization that partnership, not abject denial, is truly the best path forward. If the Federal Government keeps its promises, Alaska will realize its potential, grow as a State, and secure its future.

We would not be doing this just for Alaska alone. The rest of the Nation will benefit greatly as well. That is something we need. It is something we should all agree to work for. There is probably no better time to start than today as we recognize Alaska Day.

I thank the Chair for the attention of the Presiding Officer and for the opportunity to share a little bit of Alaska's history and our frustration with the present.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I speak today in honor of Brian Schmidt, one of three individuals who were awarded the Nobel Prize for physics this week. Dr. Schmidt, of the Australian National University, along with Dr. Adam Reiss, of Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Saul Perlmutter, of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, completed groundbreaking work on the expansion of the universe. The scientific achievement of these three men deserves to be recognized. I am pleased to acknowledge that the scientific career of Dr. Schmidt was encouraged through his tenure in high school in Alaska.

Dr. Schmidt, originally from Montana, moved to Alaska in 1981, where he attended Bartlett High School in Anchorage, AK, graduating in 1985. At Bartlett, many teachers took note of his academic achievements and strong work ethic, and encouraged him to excel in his studies. Dr. Schmidt has remarked on the great experience he had attending school in Alaska, crediting his high school teachers for helping him cultivate an interest in science that has brought him to where he is today.

After leaving Alaska, Dr. Schmidt attended the University of Arizona, receiving a bachelors of science in both physics and astronomy, before continuing on to receive his doctorate in astronomy at Harvard University. He has since relocated to Australia with his wife Jennie and is a researcher at the Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the Australian National University.

Dr. Schmidt, Dr. Reiss, and Dr. Perlmutter are receiving the Nobel Prize for a discovery that has greatly changed the field of astrophysics and made great furloughs into the understanding of dark matter, the term for the force that is driving the universe apart. Conventional understanding was that rate of expansion of the universe has slowed. However, these three scientists turned this theory on its head by proving that, in fact, the rate of expansion is actually accelerating. This change in understanding affects predictions regarding the conditions of future galaxies, and the discovery has been lauded by some as one of the greatest discoveries in science.

Those who knew Dr. Schmidt in Alaska were not surprised to learn of his accomplishment. His teachers at Bartlett knew his intellect and passion for science would take him far. I, along with many others in my State, am proud to recognize this Alaskan who has made valuable contributions to our understanding of the universe.

I offer warm congratulations to Dr. Schmidt, Dr. Reiss, and Dr. Perlmutter on their Nobel Prize and scientific achievements.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank Senator Bingaman for leading the effort to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

Over 100 years ago this Congress passed a law which formed a compact with counties, boroughs and parishes in rural America where the National Forests are located. That compact stipulated that the Forest Service would share 25 percent of its revenues with local governments to support roads and schools.

This agreement was put into law 60 years before the Payment in Lieu of Tax law was written to help compensate counties for the loss of revenue caused by the inability to tax federal property.

Over the years, the Forest Service shared billions of dollars with the counties and, until 1990, the amount of those payments increased almost every year. In fact, the Forest Service sold $1.6 billion worth of timber in fiscal year 1990. As a result, counties received more than $402 million in 25 percent payments to support schools and roads.

More importantly, the Forest Service timber sale program in 1990 generated more than 102,000 direct and indirect jobs in areas that now have the highest unemployment rates in the country. Those timber sales generated more than $5.3 billion--that is billion with a ``B'' of economic activity and $800 million in Federal income taxes. Further, revenue from the Forest Service's timber sale program supported many of the other Forest Service's multiple-use programs, including recreation, wilderness, road building and maintenance, and fire suppression.

All that changed in 1990 and 1991, when activists used the Endangered Species Act to reduce, and in some instances stop, timber harvesting across the West. If I could wave a magic wand and legislate reforms to the many environmental laws that have been twisted and misconstrued in order to block any development of our natural resources, rather than ensuring responsible decision making by our Federal land management agencies, as Congress intended, I would.

In the long run, I think that is what is needed, and I am convinced that given the economic malaise this country suffers, the American public is beginning to understand the wrongheaded direction our Federal land management has taken over the last two and a half decades.

But I don't think I can accomplish that in this Congress, and I am compelled to avoid adding any additional pain and suffering to the shoulders of the small rural communities that depend on Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act payments. Therefore I am joining Senators Bingaman and Wyden and others in cosponsoring legislation to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act for another 5-year period.

Senator Bingaman has fully described the bill, but it reauthorizes the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act at fiscal year 2011 payment levels for 5 more years. We have reduced the annual reduction in payments from the 10 percent level in current law down to a 5-percent annual reduction. Under this plan, counties, parishes, communities and schools will receive up to $364 million in temporary assistance each year for the next 5 years.

I say ``temporary'' because this program was, and is, designed to be a short-term bridge to allow counties and communities to transition to the new economic reality that our wrongheaded Federal lands policy has forced upon them.

I want everyone to also understand that while having signed on to this bill I am also considering a number of other alternative solutions that have the promise of generating enough revenue and jobs from Federal land activities to make our counties whole. I am willing to go as far as turning control of some Federal lands over to counties so that they may get some economic benefit from them. But first I will be taking a careful look at Representative Hastings's bill to generate additional resource management by lifting restrictions and expediting the processes needed to offer additional timber sales.

I want everyone to know that if a legitimate, acceptable, offset to pay for the cost of this program is not identified by the time the bill is ready to move to the Senate floor, I will have no alternative but to remove my name from the bill and will have to work to defeat the bill.

I would tell my fellow Senators that the folks in the House Resources Committee are fundamentally correct. We are going to have to either utilize our Federal lands to support our rural communities or we should divest the Federal Government of those lands and let the States, or the counties, manage those lands. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to find a path forward for this approach in this and future Congresses.

I will close by speaking directly to the counties, parishes, boroughs and communities that have now depended on the Secure Rural School program for more than a decade--and for some counties in Oregon, Washington and Northwest California for more than two decades--the Secure Rural Schools Payments are coming to an end. It could be this year if enough people do not rally around the bill that Senator Bingaman, I, and our other cosponsors have proposed. It could be 2 years from now if Representative Hastings and other Representatives prevail. Or it could be 5 years from now if we find the acceptable offsets needed to pay for our legislative proposal. My fervent hope is that the program will be replaced by a forest management system that actually puts people back to work in the forest, but it's coming to an end, and the counties and schools need to prepare for that eventuality.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank Senator Bingaman for leading the effort to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

Over 100 years ago this Congress passed a law which formed a compact with counties, boroughs and parishes in rural America where the National Forests are located. That compact stipulated that the Forest Service would share 25 percent of its revenues with local governments to support roads and schools.

This agreement was put into law 60 years before the Payment in Lieu of Tax law was written to help compensate counties for the loss of revenue caused by the inability to tax federal property.

Over the years, the Forest Service shared billions of dollars with the counties and, until 1990, the amount of those payments increased almost every year. In fact, the Forest Service sold $1.6 billion worth of timber in fiscal year 1990. As a result, counties received more than $402 million in 25 percent payments to support schools and roads.

More importantly, the Forest Service timber sale program in 1990 generated more than 102,000 direct and indirect jobs in areas that now have the highest unemployment rates in the country. Those timber sales generated more than $5.3 billion--that is billion with a ``B'' of economic activity and $800 million in Federal income taxes. Further, revenue from the Forest Service's timber sale program supported many of the other Forest Service's multiple-use programs, including recreation, wilderness, road building and maintenance, and fire suppression.

All that changed in 1990 and 1991, when activists used the Endangered Species Act to reduce, and in some instances stop, timber harvesting across the West. If I could wave a magic wand and legislate reforms to the many environmental laws that have been twisted and misconstrued in order to block any development of our natural resources, rather than ensuring responsible decision making by our Federal land management agencies, as Congress intended, I would.

In the long run, I think that is what is needed, and I am convinced that given the economic malaise this country suffers, the American public is beginning to understand the wrongheaded direction our Federal land management has taken over the last two and a half decades.

But I don't think I can accomplish that in this Congress, and I am compelled to avoid adding any additional pain and suffering to the shoulders of the small rural communities that depend on Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act payments. Therefore I am joining Senators Bingaman and Wyden and others in cosponsoring legislation to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act for another 5-year period.

Senator Bingaman has fully described the bill, but it reauthorizes the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act at fiscal year 2011 payment levels for 5 more years. We have reduced the annual reduction in payments from the 10 percent level in current law down to a 5-percent annual reduction. Under this plan, counties, parishes, communities and schools will receive up to $364 million in temporary assistance each year for the next 5 years.

I say ``temporary'' because this program was, and is, designed to be a short-term bridge to allow counties and communities to transition to the new economic reality that our wrongheaded Federal lands policy has forced upon them.

I want everyone to also understand that while having signed on to this bill I am also considering a number of other alternative solutions that have the promise of generating enough revenue and jobs from Federal land activities to make our counties whole. I am willing to go as far as turning control of some Federal lands over to counties so that they may get some economic benefit from them. But first I will be taking a careful look at Representative Hastings's bill to generate additional resource management by lifting restrictions and expediting the processes needed to offer additional timber sales.

I want everyone to know that if a legitimate, acceptable, offset to pay for the cost of this program is not identified by the time the bill is ready to move to the Senate floor, I will have no alternative but to remove my name from the bill and will have to work to defeat the bill.

I would tell my fellow Senators that the folks in the House Resources Committee are fundamentally correct. We are going to have to either utilize our Federal lands to support our rural communities or we should divest the Federal Government of those lands and let the States, or the counties, manage those lands. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to find a path forward for this approach in this and future Congresses.

I will close by speaking directly to the counties, parishes, boroughs and communities that have now depended on the Secure Rural School program for more than a decade--and for some counties in Oregon, Washington and Northwest California for more than two decades--the Secure Rural Schools Payments are coming to an end. It could be this year if enough people do not rally around the bill that Senator Bingaman, I, and our other cosponsors have proposed. It could be 2 years from now if Representative Hastings and other Representatives prevail. Or it could be 5 years from now if we find the acceptable offsets needed to pay for our legislative proposal. My fervent hope is that the program will be replaced by a forest management system that actually puts people back to work in the forest, but it's coming to an end, and the counties and schools need to prepare for that eventuality.

Mr. President, I come before you today with a heavy heart, as another of Alaska's treasured elders has passed. Yesterday would have marked the 103rd birthday of Hannah Solomon, a revered Athabascan elder and Gwich'in matriarch. Hannah passed away peacefully at her home in Fairbanks, September 16, 2011.

Grandma Hannah, as she was lovingly referred to, was surrounded by family and loved ones as she passed from this world. She spoke her last words softly, saying to family in Gwich'in, her traditional language, that it was time.

Hannah was known for her devotion to God. She was a very familiar face at St. Matthew's Episcopal Church in Fairbanks, and it is said that she was the last person alive to remember the sound of Episcopalian Archdeacon Hudson Stuck's voice. In the days following her passing, a red rose sat atop a crocheted pink and blue pillow in the empty pew seat where Hannah sat in devotion for so many years.

She was also well known for her beautiful and intricate beadwork; many of her pieces can be seen in museum collections around the world. Hannah was not only an artist but a culture bearer. She was born in the Interior of Alaska near the Porcupine River and raised 14 children in a traditional subsistence lifestyle. With no running water or electricity, the family enjoyed all the wealth their traditional homelands offered and never considered themselves to be poor.

Hannah may be best remembered for her social activism. With the wellbeing of her Gwich'in people always in mind, she and her husband Paul Solomon, Sr., helped to form many Alaska Native organizations, including the Fairbanks Native Association and Denakkanaaga. Fluent in her Native language, Hannah also worked as one of the first early social workers in Alaska, helping to create services for those in need.

Her passing will leave a void in our hearts that is difficult to fill. With the passing of each Alaska Native elder we lose a connection to the past and our unique history. Hannah took her responsibility as a culture bearer very seriously, ensuring that future generations knew the stories and traditions of the Gwich'in culture. She was a role model, matriarch, and a leader of exceptional courage and strength, inspiring people to appreciate and love one another.

I would like to offer Hannah's Solomon's family and countless friends my heartfelt condolences. She served the Native people and our beloved State of Alaska brilliantly over the course of her entire life. It is my hope that her extraordinary life will continue to serve as an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. President, I speak today in honor of Mrs. Sarah J. Greenlee, who this week accepted the 2011 Joan Orr Air Force Spouse of the Year award. Sarah was selected from thousands of nominees worldwide who selflessly support their loved ones in uniform. I am pleased to note that Sarah earned this honor while serving in the great State of Alaska at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. Sarah and her husband, LTC Paul Greenlee, have recently been transferred to Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, but Sarah has left an indelible mark on the Anchorage area through her volunteer work and leadership in the community.

Sarah was born into a military family and traveled extensively in the United States and Europe before graduating from Clark High School in San Antonio. She attended Southwest Texas State University, where she earned a bachelor's degree in psychology, and later the University of Texas-Arlington, where she achieved a master's degree in social work. Sarah subsequently entered the Air Force through the Commissioned Officer Training Program as a social worker. After 4 years of service, Sarah left the Air Force to become a full time wife and mother. Sarah and Paul are proud parents of Andrew, Rachel, and Zoe.

There is a saying in the military that ``home is where the service takes you,'' and for the Greenlees home has been Mississippi, Washington, Illinois, Alaska, and now Hawaii. While we ask much of our men and women in uniform, we recognize it is the entire family who serves. With every move, families say goodbye to dear friends, kids start school in new places, and the clock starts ticking again toward the next transition. Despite enduring these frequent moves, military spouses quickly become leaders on base and in the local community. Sarah Greenlee is a fitting case in point.

Sarah took several actions worth noting. We had two tragic aircraft accidents last year in Alaska where we lost the crews of a C-17 and an F-22 within a matter of months. In the aftermath, Sarah jumped in with support and comfort, providing food and offering encouragement to leaders and personnel

from the affected units. She opened her home to children of commanders working on the recovery effort, relieving them to focus on obligations to their units.

Sarah's impact in the local community was no less remarkable. She was active in the Mount Spurr Elementary School PTA and Anchorage Faith and Family Church. Pastors Brant and Tamara Barker, founders of the church, have travelled from Alaska to Washington to celebrate Sarah's significant accomplishment.

Those who know Sarah best say she is a source of encouragement for all she meets. Her listening ears, compassionate words, and acts of kindness bring others support and hope.

The Air Force Spouse of the Year award is named after the late Joan Orr, wife of former Secretary of the Air Force Verne Orr. Mrs. Orr was a rare, inspirational leader who would accompany her husband on visits to bases, meeting with families and visiting community support facilities. During the Christmas holiday, the Orrs traveled to remote bases in my home State of Alaska to visit servicemembers who were separated from their families. Mrs. Orr had a passion for teaching dance. Even as she struggled with the debilitating effects of Lou Gehrig's disease, she never cancelled a dance class. From a wheelchair and using a writing slate when her voice failed, she taught up to 2 weeks before her death. Sarah, like Joan, realized she had something to give and the willingness in her heart to give it.

I offer warm congratulations to Sarah on her selection as the 2011 Air Force Spouse of the Year and wish her and her family a bright future.

Mr. President, I speak today in honor of one of our Nation's finest, a member of the U.S. Air Force. I am pleased to announce that Raven S. Taylor was selected as one of 12 airmen who earned the award of Outstanding Airman of the Year, and I am proud to note that Raven earned this distinction while serving in the rank of senior airman at Eielson Air Force Base, AK. She has since been promoted to staff sergeant. This is an auspicious occasion and no small feat considering the 12 airmen were selected from an eligible pool of over 288,000 for their superior leadership, job performance, and personal achievement.

Raven is a native of Waycross, GA. She graduated with honors from Prince County High School and enlisted in the Air Force in 2007. After basic training and technical school as a aerospace medical technician, Alaska welcomed her to Eielson as her first duty assignment. Like many others who come to our State, Raven felt right at home, thriving in her job at the hospital and making meaningful contributions to the community. She oversaw some 650 preventive health assessments and supervised the infection control program, which achieved a flawless record of zero infections reported over 18,000 patient visits. Raven assisted with 20

minor surgeries and worked over 1,000 hours of ambulance service, where she was credited with helping to save the life of a gunshot victim. While at Eielson she found time to volunteer with the USO, Big Brothers Big Sisters, the Air Force Sergeants Association, and youth cheerleading. Add to this her work toward a bachelor's degree in nursing, and it is clear why she stood out from her peers for this prestigious award.

Excellence is contagious. Rewarding the best of the best motivates others in their own endeavors. In a time when our servicemembers are all volunteers, the professionalism and proficiency of the force is fueled by those within the ranks who lead by example and uphold the core values of their service. The example Raven set through her exceptional performance has undoubtedly been transmitted to countless other airmen she served with. Alaska is proud to have had her.

Alaskans take pride in treating our military better than any other State, and we like to think our support makes them better soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines, and coast guardsmen. We know they make us better. Our military members are a reassuring presence in our communities, and we hope our faithful patriotism reciprocates the inspiration we draw from theirs. Raven has recently been transferred to Yokota Air Base, Japan, but I trust she will fondly remember her time in Alaska. I congratulate Sergeant Taylor on her selection as one of the 12 Outstanding Airmen, I thank her for her service, and I look forward to hearing of her continued success.

Mr. President, for the 13th consecutive year, communities across the world today are pausing during the 9th hour of the 9th day of the 9th month to acknowledge International Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day. FASD Day will be observed in my home State of Alaska with ceremonies across the State.

I am grateful that this body is also recognizing Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day with a moment of reflection. For this, I thank my colleagues, especially the senior Senator from South Dakota, Tim Johnson, who has joined with me in offering a resolution recognizing September 9, 2011, as National Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day. I hope we will continue to pause in the ninth hour of the ninth day each September until fetal alcohol spectrum disorders are eradicated.

FASD is an umbrella term that describes a range of physical and mental birth defects that can occur in a fetus when a pregnant woman consumes alcohol. It is a leading cause of nonhereditary mental retardation in the United States. Many children affected by maternal drinking during pregnancy have irreversible conditions, including severe brain damage. It is causing permanent lifelong disability.

Unlike thousands of other diseases, FASD is 100 percent preventable. Prevention merely requires a woman to abstain from alcohol during pregnancy. Knowing that it is entirely preventable, it saddens me to think that every year in this country an estimated 1 in every 100 babies is born with FASD. That is about 40,000 infants annually. FASD affects more children than Down's syndrome, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, and muscular dystrophy combined.

All in all, the direct and indirect economic costs of FASD in the United States are estimated to be $5.4 billion. FASD is found in every community in America. It does not discriminate.

During my time in the Senate, I have given many speeches recognizing FASD day. In each of those speeches, I have talked about Alaska's high rate of FASD. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention project established that in 2002, Alaska's FASD rate was the highest in the Nation. Among our Native communities, the rate of FASD has been 15 times higher than in non-Native areas in our State. But this year I am proud to report that our statistics have vastly improved.

According to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Alaska Native babies were born with fetal alcohol syndrome half as often around the year 2000 as they were 5 to 7 years earlier. Through a major Federal-State prevention and education effort from 1991 to 1996, and with a second effort from 1998 to 2006, the rate of fetal alcohol syndrome among Alaska Native babies decreased by 49 percent. Alaska's overall rate dropped to 13.5 from 20.0. More work can and should certainly be done, but this is a remarkable improvement for a State with historically the highest rate of FASD.

Mr. President, 40,000 American children each year are born with FASD. But education in prevention, treatment, and research of FASD will save countless future health care costs relating to this devastating but entirely preventable disorder.

I appreciate my colleagues' support of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Awareness Day and hope we all remember the innocent babies afflicted with this disorder. I hope we continue to recognize the ninth hour of the ninth day of each September until fetal alcohol syndrome disorders are eradicated.

Mr. President, many of us remember exactly where we were on the morning of September 11, 2001. We will never forget the footage from New York as the towers fell, from the Pentagon as fire raged, and from Pennsylvania, where United flight 93 was grounded in a field. We questioned who would do this, if another attack was coming, and if we were safe in our own country anymore. The tragedy suffered by our nation on that day left us with important lessons to learn, improvements to make, and a renewed sense of urgency towards the future of our society and national security.

On that Tuesday morning, we were victims of a terrible attack that killed 2,961 American citizens, destroyed $15 billion of property, and launched us into a battle we continue to fight. The actions of the terrorists also sparked the spirit of a nation united. It left us with a resolve to regroup, rebuild and recover while renewing our country's reputation as a world leader and symbol of freedom.

The impacts of 9/11 were not lost on Alaskans. Although thousands of miles away at the moment of attack, Alaskans sprung into action to help their countrymen in any way possible. Some deployed to Ground Zero, some sponsored fundraisers or blood drives, and some to this day are serving their country in the ongoing operations in

Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world.

Today, we pay homage to our fallen heroes. On Sunday, I will join my fellow Alaskans in honoring those courageous first responders at the 2011 Alaska Fallen Firefighter Memorial Ceremony and 9/11 Remembrance in Anchorage. We will remember firefighters and other first responders who gave their lives on September 11, 2001 and since then. To them, emergency response was far more than a job--it was a vocation they felt was worth risking their lives in the face of incredible danger.

I urge Alaskans to join with all Americans across the country to serve their neighbors and communities on what Congress has deemed Patriot Day.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce Early Intervention for Graduation Success Authorization Act. This legislation would, if enacted, amend the current School Dropout Prevention provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It would focus attention on identifying and helping students who are at risk to not graduate from high school as early as pre-kindergarten and through elementary and middle school.

Some may ask, ``Why are you concentrating on toddlers and elementary school children when you are trying to solve the high school dropout crisis facing our Nation? Why not focus attention and our Nation's scarce resources on high school students, or even middle school students?''

The reason is simple. Early on is when children's troubles in school begin, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. High school and middle school students do not just wake up one day and say, ``I think I'll drop out of school today.'' Twenty-five years of research tells us that dropping out is a long process of frustration, alienation, and even boredom, it is not a sudden decision. We know that students with disabilities, minority and poor children, and students whose home lives are, in all sorts of ways, difficult have lower graduation rates than their peers. The challenges children face today are all too prevalent, and we know the factors that make it harder for them to succeed in school. We know this.

It only makes sense that we re-work the program that is intended to help schools increase their graduation rates so that it actually helps schools help children when we can make the most difference. We need to act before these children have fought for years just to stay afloat, and before they are too tired, frustrated, alienated, and angry to fight anymore.

Factors that have been shown to present a significant risk factor even in elementary school include: low achievement, grade retention, poor attendance, misbehavior and aggression, and low socioeconomic status. Family background characteristics play a role as well, such as family disruption, not living with parents, and parents' low educational attainment. Even low birth weight has been shown by numerous studies to be linked with poor educational outcomes.

My ``Early Intervention for Graduation Success'' bill would focus Federal funds on states that have the lowest graduation rates. State education agencies would be required to develop or update their plans to increase graduation rates. They would also be required to work with health, social services, juvenile justice, and other relevant state agencies to help school districts and early childhood education providers better identify which of their students have research-based risk factors. In turn, schools and early learning providers would be required to develop and update individual learning plans for these students and ensure that the next school of enrollment has the child's plan.

My bill also gives States and partnerships a menu of research-based activities from which to choose to improve services to students, including professional development, program quality improvement, curriculum alignment, community integration and support services, and setting high expectations for academic achievement.

In short, my bill helps States and schools to give students the support they need to achieve their dreams, and inspires them to dream big, right from the very start.

We can continue to spend millions of dollars every year on intensive services for teenagers who are far behind in school, who are frustrated beyond all measure, and who gave up on success long ago. We may even have some limited success helping some young people get back on track and graduate from high school. Or, we can start at the beginning, making sure that the children who already have challenges get the help they need to succeed.

I look forward to passage of this bill or incorporating it into the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce Early Intervention for Graduation Success Authorization Act. This legislation would, if enacted, amend the current School Dropout Prevention provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It would focus attention on identifying and helping students who are at risk to not graduate from high school as early as pre-kindergarten and through elementary and middle school.

Some may ask, ``Why are you concentrating on toddlers and elementary school children when you are trying to solve the high school dropout crisis facing our Nation? Why not focus attention and our Nation's scarce resources on high school students, or even middle school students?''

The reason is simple. Early on is when children's troubles in school begin, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. High school and middle school students do not just wake up one day and say, ``I think I'll drop out of school today.'' Twenty-five years of research tells us that dropping out is a long process of frustration, alienation, and even boredom, it is not a sudden decision. We know that students with disabilities, minority and poor children, and students whose home lives are, in all sorts of ways, difficult have lower graduation rates than their peers. The challenges children face today are all too prevalent, and we know the factors that make it harder for them to succeed in school. We know this.

It only makes sense that we re-work the program that is intended to help schools increase their graduation rates so that it actually helps schools help children when we can make the most difference. We need to act before these children have fought for years just to stay afloat, and before they are too tired, frustrated, alienated, and angry to fight anymore.

Factors that have been shown to present a significant risk factor even in elementary school include: low achievement, grade retention, poor attendance, misbehavior and aggression, and low socioeconomic status. Family background characteristics play a role as well, such as family disruption, not living with parents, and parents' low educational attainment. Even low birth weight has been shown by numerous studies to be linked with poor educational outcomes.

My ``Early Intervention for Graduation Success'' bill would focus Federal funds on states that have the lowest graduation rates. State education agencies would be required to develop or update their plans to increase graduation rates. They would also be required to work with health, social services, juvenile justice, and other relevant state agencies to help school districts and early childhood education providers better identify which of their students have research-based risk factors. In turn, schools and early learning providers would be required to develop and update individual learning plans for these students and ensure that the next school of enrollment has the child's plan.

My bill also gives States and partnerships a menu of research-based activities from which to choose to improve services to students, including professional development, program quality improvement, curriculum alignment, community integration and support services, and setting high expectations for academic achievement.

In short, my bill helps States and schools to give students the support they need to achieve their dreams, and inspires them to dream big, right from the very start.

We can continue to spend millions of dollars every year on intensive services for teenagers who are far behind in school, who are frustrated beyond all measure, and who gave up on success long ago. We may even have some limited success helping some young people get back on track and graduate from high school. Or, we can start at the beginning, making sure that the children who already have challenges get the help they need to succeed.

I look forward to passage of this bill or incorporating it into the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. President, Don Dickey, a longtime resident of Juneau, AK, passed away on June 25, 2011, at the age of 89. A native of Stockton, CA, Don moved to Alaska in 1952 to manage the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce. He returned to California in 1955 to work for the California State Chamber but in 1960 decided Alaska would be his home. It was then that he relocated, once again to Alaska, to organize the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce. He served as president for the Alaska State Chamber for 22 years.

In 1981, Don was named director of the Alaska Division of Tourism, working for Governor Hammond and then Governor Sheffield. He was a key player in the growth of Alaska's tourism industry.

Terry Miller, who served as Don's deputy when he directed the Alaska Division of Tourism remembers Don's effort to persuade all of those in the Alaska tourism business to join together in a cooperative marketing effort to sell Alaska as a destination, rather than their individual businesses. ``He got the little mom and pop operations, the cruise companies, the airlines, everybody with a stake in it to pool their marketing dollars.'' Alaska's former Lieutenant Governor John Coghill described Don as, ``the one who probably laid the blueprint for what happened later.'' What happened later was the emergence of Alaska as the premier visitor destination it is today.

Those who knew Don best describe him in these terms: classy, gentle, dynamic, charming, a great promoter of Alaska, and a very funny guy. His admirers refer to him as one ``who could totally captivate a room and be very persuasive,'' and as one ``who could inspire and motivate others.''

I have known Don since I was a young girl growing up in southeast Alaska. He always had a joke, a story, or funny quip to share. My family and I have fond memories of good times spent together.

On behalf of the U.S. Senate and the people of Alaska, grateful for his leadership, as well as his wit, I extend condolences to Don's wife Gen, his children Dru and Dane, and all of those who mourn the loss of this exemplary Alaskan.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. It is my understanding we were bumping up against the vote at 5:30. Is that correct, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I had hoped to be able to speak at greater length than 3 minutes this afternoon, but the message that Senator Coburn has been delivering is so incredibly important. I want to join Senator Kerry's remarks in thanking him for being one who has been working to find not a deal but to find a solution to the issues we face today.

As we have deliberated all day long, there has been a lot of finger- pointing, a lot of blame. As the Senator from Massachusetts has noted, a lot of times it seems as if the comments are just going past one another rather than directed in a purposeful way that would actually make a difference to this debate.

We started out this morning with messages from the leader arguing over who was filibustering. We have all talked about the need to see compromise, and then we go on to say why we can't compromise. What we need to be working toward is a solution to the problem as opposed to attempting to cobble together a deal at the last moment that will gain those necessary votes.

The one thing I would hope we are all working toward is to avoid the default we all fear. We have all been listening to our constituents calling us this weekend. As we read our e-mails, as we talk to friends and neighbors, the concern is very real. One thing we have managed to do on a bipartisan basis in this Congress over the past few days is to incite fear in the American public, to make our constituents angry, frustrated, and mad. Well, misery loves company. We are angry, frustrated, and mad here. But I would like to suggest, as the hours wind down, we come together as a body in the Senate and the House to find that compromise.

Senator Isakson stood on the floor earlier this afternoon and spoke of the contours of a proposal that worked to integrate the good ideas of several different Members--of Senator Reid, of Speaker Boehner, and of the minority leader, Senator McConnell. We should be working to find those areas where we agree because those areas are, in fact, in place.

I am hopeful, Mr. President, as the majority leader comes back in from his meetings he will have some encouraging news for us as we work through these last hours.

I would like to gain some additional time later on this evening to speak more in detail, but I see the majority leader before us waiting to speak.

Madam President, I follow my friend from California, and I agree wholeheartedly with her that the United States of America cannot default on its debts and obligations. I would like to think that all 100 of us in this body would concur and agree that we must, using every tool that we have at our disposal, using all of our relationships and what we have built as Members in this body and in the House of Representatives, that we use our best efforts to ensure we do not default as a nation but that we go further, that we go further and we offer the people of this country a solution to the problems that have led us to the point that we are today.

We have heard a great deal over the course of these past few days about the Boehner plan and whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, and now the Reid plan and whether it is good, bad, or indifferent. We assumably know what the Republicans want and what the Democrats want.

What about what the people of this country want right now? I don't know what all of the people of America want, but I can give you some ideas about what I am hearing from the people of Alaska and what they are concerned about and what they want from the Senate, from the U.S. House of Representatives, and from the President of this country. They want us to fix it. Odd that it should be so easy. Just fix it. They expect us to do just that. They expect us to fix this problem. That is why they have entrusted us with their confidence by allowing us the privilege to come and represent them in this body to help resolve these issues.

They don't expect that I, as a Republican, am going to resolve it with just the Republicans. They expect that we, as Members of the Senate, will resolve this--Republicans and Democrats alike. They believe we will achieve a compromise built on the good ideas that come from the Republicans and the good ideas that come from the Democrats; that we will come together to solve the problems that affect the people in the great State of Maryland and the people in the great State of Alaska, and all the places in between.

In our effort to fix this, they expect us to compromise. Compromise should not be a negative or a nasty term. It should be what we all work to achieve jointly.

I would suggest that the other thing the people are looking for is honesty. They are listening to this debate. We have received phone calls in my office all day. We have been receiving them all week. I think so many of us have picked up the phones ourselves to hear what people are saying when they are calling. They are saying: Wait a minute. You guys are throwing numbers around. First of all, Speaker Boehner puts out a plan, and, well, it doesn't achieve the 1-to-1 ratio that he thought, so he pulls it back and so we have another set. Now Senator Reid has his proposal on the floor, but people are talking about this $1 trillion that is going for the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq that we know is not really real and these are phantom numbers.

They are saying: Who are we to believe? Why are you not honest with us about the proposals that are out there? Does it cut? Would you expect that it will cut if, in fact, we are going to be focused on entitlements, Social Security? If we are going to be talking about tax revenues and how we might deal with tax reform? Can you not be honest with us, the American people, your constituents, the people you represent? They want a level of honesty in this discourse. We owe that to them.

People are also looking for certainty. There were some of my colleagues who spoke earlier in the day, and they were speaking from the perspective of small

businesses and how--as a small businessman or large businessperson for that matter--it is imperative that in order for a person to make those business judgment decisions in terms of whether they are going to expand, whether they are going to bring on additional employees, they need to have a level of certainty in terms of what is going to go on.

What is going to happen with tax policy? What is the future of the economy going to be? What is the jobs picture like? It is not like we all have a crystal shiny ball out there that we can predict with great precision. We don't. What we ought not be doing is injecting greater uncertainty, and that is what is happening right now.

All throughout this summer we have kind of strung people along. We all knew that August 2 was coming. We all knew the revenue was coming in and the outlays going out were not going to be measuring up, and we were going to be dealing with the potential for a default; we were going to be dealing with the potential for a downgrade in our credit rating. This is no surprise to anybody. That is where our crystal ball actually was pretty transparent. Yet we are not able to pull it together.

We managed to take a recess last week even though we were all promised we were going to be here working around the clock because we had important business to do. I was here with a colleague on Friday morning after the vote, looked around and realized I was perhaps the last Senator left here in Washington, DC. I got on a plane at 2:30 that afternoon to go to Alaska for crying out loud. We should have been here last weekend doing this instead of mere hours before we are up against our default deadline.

What does this do to the certainty or uncertainty in the economic climate, to the investment climate? I hesitate to be one that would suggest that we need to be making market decisions because we can't figure out what is going on here. I can tell you because I am hearing it in the halls. People are saying: I don't know about you, but I am looking at my investment fund or my retirement fund, and I am moving things. That is the kind of confidence they have in our ability to figure it out.

We are seeing it translate in the numbers. We saw that at the end of the week with the markets. We know tomorrow evening when the Asian markets open, everybody in the world from the financial community--this is not just the people in Washington, DC--will be looking to see whether we, as a Congress, have figured it out and if we have fixed it. If we don't, that continued uncertainty just continues this spiral.

We can do a lot in the Senate. We can do a lot in the Congress. We can pass bills and the President can sign them into law. One of the things we cannot legislate is we cannot tell the markets to shape up. We cannot tell the markets to pull it back in, everything is going to be OK. They are picking up on signals, and the signals right now are a level of uncertainty that is rattling.

The other thing that I think the people of this country are hoping for, are asking for, is a level of civility and respect within this body to our President, to those in the other body. We all come from different persuasions. Alaska is different from Maryland. My politics are different from your politics, Madam President, but I have great respect for you. We can argue and we can disagree, but we don't need to poke fingers in one another's eyes to get our point across.

I think what the people have seen, as we have engaged in this debate, is something that does not do justice to the integrity of this institution. We need to get back to that point where we can engage in good debate and disagree heartily and make our arguments without being disrespectful of one another and the perspectives we, as individuals representing our constituencies and our States, bring to the table.

The hour is late. We will have a vote at 1 o'clock in the morning. How dignified. What body comes together at the darkest hour to cast a vote?

Last evening, my brother and sister-in-law were in town. They were passing through very quickly. They were actually able to be here and watch for about an hour and a half while we were engaged in the vote on the floor. My brother and sister-in-law are pretty educated people. They follow the news. They follow the politicians. They were fascinated by what was going on in this body and trying to understand what it was that was going on. I was trying to convey it to them, and I realized, if it is this difficult for me as a Member of this body to explain to somebody who is pretty plugged into what is going on, what is happening here, imagine the confusion of the person who just occasionally tunes in to C-SPAN, who reads the news or watches the evening news but isn't following the day-to-day. What we have managed to do is, on a bipartisan basis, confuse the American public, anger them, frustrate them, and cause them to be fearful about the future of our country. That is not leadership.

We have an opportunity in these next very short days ahead to regain some of this. We have some ideas that are out there. As the Senator from California has mentioned, and many others have mentioned, there are a great number of talks that are going on. There are talks at the leadership level. There are talks going on with those of us who are not part of leadership. That is important. But we need to recognize it is absolutely critical for the future of our country--not the future of our political well-being but the future of our country--that we be coming together to resolve the issues, not necessarily just to broker a deal but to find a solution that puts the interests of our country above our own political interests. That is where we need to be.

I am an optimist. I am a person who has the glass always half full. I remain committed to working with all Members of good will who will stand together to work through these difficult details. It is not easy, but they never promised us it was going to be.

With that, I yield the floor.