Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take the time to recognize the loss of Walter Parker. Walter Parker passed away on June 25, 2014, in Anchorage, AK. Walt Parker was dedicated to our State and he made his mark in many ways.

Walter Parker came up to Alaska in 1946 after serving in World War II and held vital roles in the development of the State of Alaska. From overseeing the construction of the Dalton Highway to being appointed to the Alaska State Pipeline office, Walter Parker helped shape Alaska into what it is today. He was a constant advocate for stronger communities, higher education, parks and trails, safer transportation and better communities. He was a musher, trapper, bush pilot, planner and borough assemblyman who never lost his commitment or faith to help make Alaska a great place to live.

Throughout his life, Walter Parker approached all parts of his life with excitement, passion, idealism and energy--he was a force to be reckoned with. He passed on his knowledge by teaching at the University of Alaska and helped our State after the devastation of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. He served as chairman of the Alaska Oil Spill Commission. Later in his life, he held various government positions and was involved in public interest organizations that helped make Alaska better.

The loss of Walter Parker is sad and all who knew him mourns his loss. The work Walter Parker did for Alaska will never be forgotten, and we are all thankful for his commitment and dedication to the people of Alaska.

Mr. President, I wish to honor and remember long time Alaskan, Mr. Fred Brown. Mr. Brown died in Fairbanks at the Denali Center on Friday, June 27, 2014 at the age of 70.

Fred Brown was a former 4-term Fairbanks legislator who was elected in 1974 served in the Alaska House of Representatives in the 1970s and early 1980s. He was not only an active member of the community, but a man with a passion for contributing to the development of the State of Alaska. With a remarkable passion for music and radio, he enriched the territory and State for decades. He was an avid ham radio operator known by the call sign KL7CUS.

Outside the legislature, Fred Brown played the flute, piccolo and contra bassoon for 50 years with the Fairbanks Symphony Orchestra. He was also an active member at St. Matthew's Episcopal Church where his memory will be honored.

Fred Brown cared deeply about his community and was committed to public service. As a legislator, he carried himself and the State forward with self-determination and dignity. His wife Helen said her husband had three main passions: ``Politics, music and religion were what mattered to him, which is a strange combination, but that really was the triumvirate of his life.'' He was a master of parliamentary procedure and scrupulously ran meetings according to Mason's Rules in the interest of fairness to all.

While we mourn the loss of his presence, the legacy of this remarkable man lives on. He leaves behind many friends who are grateful to have known his exceptional character. The people of Alaska will always owe a debt of gratitude to former Alaska legislator Fred Brown.

On behalf of his family and his many friends, I ask that we honor Fred Brown's memory.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize the residents of Port Lions, AK as they celebrate the golden anniversary of the founding of their community.

Port Lions was founded after the tsunami caused by the 1964 Good Friday earthquake destroyed settlements on Afognak and Raspberry Islands. Residents of Port Lions began moving into the village in December, after receiving incredible support from the Lions Club to build anew. Over the years, Port Lions has become a community with a strong sense of pride in family, friendship, and the kind of resilience that characterizes Alaskans.

This year the city of Port Lions and the Native village of Port Lions have organized events to celebrate their 50-year history. They have honored the neighbors and relatives lost in 1964, celebrated the community they helped to build, and fostered their vision for even more growth and prosperity in the future.

I would like to thank the residents of Port Lions for their persistence, resilience, and determination in the face of difficult obstacles. Their lives are testimony to the strong spirit of Alaska. I am honored to have the opportunity to share in the commemoration of their golden anniversary.

Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to the hard work of the students and faculty of the Southeast Island School District, their local community members, and their Superintendent, Lauren Busch.

In response to high food costs, the school district sought funding and community support to build greenhouses for students at each of its four schools: Thorne Bay, Coffman Cove, Naukati, and Barry Stewart. Students and community members found funding, purchased and constructed greenhouses and are now using locally sourced biomass to heat them.

While building a few greenhouses may not sound like much to those in the lower 48, things are different in Alaska. High transportation costs, high energy costs, the lack of access to raw materials, and sometimes severe weather all combine to make for a high cost of living. This makes this district-wide greenhouse project a tremendous achievement.

A central part of my job is to explain how different Alaska is to my colleagues here and to help them understand these high costs our Alaska communities face. These are the central challenges of our State and, in one project, have been smartly and creatively addressed through the Southeast Island School District greenhouse program. In addition, the program also teaches students many other valuable skills, including entrepreneurship.

I am proud to congratulate these hard-working and resourceful Alaskans and I wish them continued success.

Mr. President, I appreciate an opportunity to speak on a bill we passed here yesterday, the veterans access reform bill. We passed it 93 to 3, which is amazing when you think about it--in this body--as we struggle to get issues in front of us and work on them. What we saw was an incredible bipartisan piece of legislation basically saying: We are for vets. We want to make sure that veterans have the best care they deserve and they earned fighting wars--not only the recent ones but in the past.

I want to talk a little bit about the piece of legislation, and then I am going to talk about some pieces that are important to Alaska. I will show some examples here in a second. But I ultimately want to talk about what is left still ahead of us. As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, it is not just about passing one bill and saying: We are done; we have done our chore; we have done our job. No, there is a lot more work ahead of us.

This bill we passed is a bipartisan bill, with Democrats and Republicans coming together because veterans are not a partisan issue; it is an American issue. In my State it is an American-Alaskan issue; in the Presiding Officer's State, a Massachusetts issue. It is important for all of us to step to the plate and make sure we do the right thing.

This now provides the VA Secretary the authority to dismiss those senior executives who are not performing, are not doing the jobs. But also it ensures that if there are situations, as we have heard and seen and then had shown to us, where there are people who falsified data, then they are going to be held accountable. As we know, recently we have heard the FBI is now reviewing some of those situations.

Whoever is at fault and has done anything to falsify needs to be held accountable and brought to justice. But it also brings out an issue that we have been dealing with in Alaska for several years--an issue that when I ran for office I remember I called the ``Heroes Health Card'' because I thought it was important, no matter where you were as a veteran, you should be able to go and access health care all throughout Alaska. My State is a very rural State, very vast in its size, and where people are and where they live. It is not easy to describe until you see it or are there.

Just for example, here in Anchorage, flying up here to Barrow is 700 miles, a long distance. But if you lived in Barrow, and you were a veteran, you could not get health care there. A VA facility does not exist. You would have to come down here to Anchorage, and that is just for a clinic, because we do not have a VA hospital in Alaska. So then if you need hospital services, you would have to go to Seattle--long distances.

So for several years we have worked on this issue. I continue to push. I brought General Shinseki out to Alaska, to rural Alaska, to show him the impact on veterans who live in rural Alaska. But yet across the street medical services provided by Indian Health Services through our Native health clinics were being delivered by our tribes-- incredible health care. But veterans could not utilize it.

So I tried to show him that the care there is incredible, high quality. We need to be able to access this. It is all paid with Federal dollars so why not figure out how to access it. Why not figure out how to maximize our public resources for the betterment of not only our Alaska Natives but also our veterans in Alaska? So we worked on an idea where today we have now agreements with 26-plus tribes. All of these black dots on this map show all the new areas that veterans can access health care if they want.

This is another choice. It is not a requirement, but if they want to stay in their region, stay close to their homes, be part of their own health care system there, they can and the VA will reimburse them, reimburse the clinic so it is no money out-of-pocket for the Indian Health Service or tribes that deliver health care.

For example, in Nome I was very proud when we debated a big issue a few years ago, trying to figure out how to deal with the stimulus bill and how to bring economic revival to our economy. One of those in that bill I voted for brought a new hospital to Nome, AK, run by a tribe--a $170 million hospital, but again 800 veterans in Nome, AK, could not access that hospital. They still had to fly to Anchorage or Seattle.

But now those 800 veterans, Native or non-Native, can access that hospital, get care, and end up staying closer to home. All throughout Alaska now people can access Indian Health Services run by our tribes and delivering incredible services.

Along with that, in Anchorage, we have a federally qualified health center that now also allows access for our veterans. Again, the bill we passed, the veterans access reform bill, took some of these examples we have been doing in Alaska and showing great success--not perfect but improving.

To give an example of this next item--and these numbers fluctuate a little bit, but I want to give a general understanding of where we were and where we are. Before we had all of this integrated within the Indian tribal system--the Alaska tribal system delivering health care-- it used to be 1,000 people, almost 1,000 people on the waiting list; today, a few dozen. This changes, this fluctuates, don't get me wrong. So when people call me and say it is not 10, it is 50 or 5, it does fluctuate, but it is no longer the 1,000.

In the waiting period, in the audit that was just done, as we all know in the 140 facilities they audited throughout the country, we, Alaska, our VA, was tied for first in the best response in regard to appointments on the waiting list. Because that was the big debate, how to improve the number of people who are on the waiting list because it is appalling--appalling--what has been happening in Arizona and other places. I have seen the list now through this audit, in some cases 2,000, in some cases 3,000 on the waiting list, waiting for care.

The bill we passed yesterday will help improve that, and the numbers for Alaska show we have an example, not perfect but yet improving significantly the care for our veterans.

No. 1, appointments, appointments scheduled within 30 days or less.

When we look at a couple of other pieces, for example, mental health, which is a new issue, growing significantly, new patient mental health average wait time in Alaska is in the top 6 percent. Again, it is a great record for us, but we would love to be No. 1 in that category, to be frank, and we are going to continue to strive to do that, but the way we have improved the system was to make sure we had more opportunities to access.

The bill we passed yesterday, again, takes some of the great things we are doing in Alaska to show access. I think this will enhance the capacity for veterans all around the State.

This is something that, again, when I campaigned on the Heroes Health Card, I believed we had this resource we could maximize, that we could move forward on, that we could make a difference for our veterans, and we are seeing it. When we look at this issue 1 year from now, we hope the model we have laid out in Alaska is not only in Alaska but across the country.

I will say we need to also keep track, because when you deliver health care through our Indian Health Service Program--in our case the tribes of Alaska or through our federally qualified clinics--they can provide the health care per patient at a cheaper rate, and no disrespect to the private doctors who are out there whom we do contract with, the VA does. They are more expensive because they work in a different model, a different business model. That is understandable. But this is a more cost-effective way.

Hopefully, by passing the bill we don't just say we passed the bill and we are done, but 6 months from now or 1 year from now we review the cost of delivering this health care to make sure we are getting the most cost benefit but also delivering quality care to our veterans, no matter where they live.

As a matter of fact, 25 percent of veterans live in rural America. That means we have to make sure our federally qualified clinics have the right resources they need so that when a veteran walks in that door, they can get the care.

I will say in the Anchorage ones--again, for people who don't know Alaska--the Federal clinics there, the one Anchorage neighborhood health center--when someone is enrolled as a veteran to utilize that facility for their primary care appointment, it is almost same day, in most cases almost same-day service--incredible. It is the same thing with our Southcentral facility health services. These are incredible clinics run by Alaska Native tribes in the Southcentral region. Again, same thing--same-day service if you are on the list. We want to make sure it is clear that once someone is on the list, they can get pretty good service, very direct service.

Let me put that aside a minute and give a general comment about veterans and veterans services we need. Again, I am going to leave this up so people see it, but the veterans access reform bill was just another step for us to improve the services to veterans. This is just one of many things.

One thing we did do on health care, the President and other Members remember when we had the shutdown, government services all stopped except VA health care, because when I first got here, there was a bill I cosponsored that gave advance appropriations.

Why were advance appropriations important? So when government shutdowns occur, health care still gets delivered for our veterans. They shouldn't be subject to the politics of this place, and we made sure of that.

But to be frank, we still have more work to do. I hear Members come down and start talking about disability claims, which still is a challenge for us. We still have a lot of work in this area to make sure we increase the capacity.

I know as an appropriator we put more money into this system so we can have more capacity to shorten the time of disability claims and make sure we get these done in a fast manner.

But we have to keep in mind, if we don't have advanced appropriations on that side of the equation, the benefits

side of the VA, and there is a government shutdown, guess what happens: GI benefits stop, disability payment claims may not be processed in a timely manner, other benefits that individuals receive as a veteran get stopped.

There is a bill pending, which I am very proud to be one of the prime sponsors of with the Republicans, both the House and the Senate, is a bipartisan bill. Every single veterans group supports it. It is important to improve the delivery system of the benefits side.

The health care side, we did some work yesterday. We have been doing work in Alaska for the last few years. Now we need to work on the benefits side.

There are many different bills out there, and a long list, working on homelessness that we need to keep focused on and making sure our benefits for our GI bill continue to move forward, helping our veterans. But I give you examples of a couple of people, and I want to speak about these case stories and then I will end. It is important to remind people of the work we did yesterday, the work we have been doing for years in Alaska, the results we are getting.

This example is now woven into the veterans access reform bill we passed yesterday--and Alaska is a great example--but here are a couple of cases in Anchorage I received recently.

One Anchorage veteran was in touch with my office and had been trying to get help from the VA since 1995 for an undiagnosed condition related to jet fuel exposure. Last week my office was able to get him an appointment immediately in order to get him service and have this looked at. He called to thank us. He is getting care and the appointments he needs and he appreciates this.

I will say it is the job for our offices--all of our offices as Members--to do everything we can for veterans. But we want to make sure this veteran--when he walks into that clinic or facility, doesn't have to wait this long or be in these situations.

Another veteran in Soldotna, with a back condition, about 150 miles away from Anchorage, which again is where we had the clinic for the VA--about a 3-hour drive in the mountains--needed to be seen closer to home. Again our office helped arrange it so he could get service right there, so he can get service closer to home.

It is important we look at these, and I see these examples all the time that we are working on every single day. I run into veterans all across Alaska who thank us for the work we do to make sure they have the access and capacity to get their benefits or their health care.

I am going to end by saying that there is no better job here than working with the veterans. It is something I enjoy--77,000 veterans in Alaska, the highest per capita in the Nation. Every day I run into a veteran who may have an issue or is just thanking us for the work or thanking this country for the service--what they get and the benefits they receive.

Yesterday was an example of what the Senate can do with veterans, come together unified, negotiate but never forget our principal job is to take care of the American people the best we can in the services we should render, and in this case it is for our veterans.

Again, Alaska is an incredible example--not perfect, let me be clear about that, and the numbers fluctuate, but at the end of the day the trend lines are the right trend lines. They are moving in the right way.

The bill we passed yesterday had some aspects of what we are doing in Alaska. It makes me proud to say Alaskan veterans should be proud that we are doing not only the best we can, but we are using our examples to help veterans all across this country, and I think that is a great statement.

We have more work to do. It is an honor to be here and explain once again what we are doing in Alaska and also yesterday being able to vote on that piece of legislation.

I know the House bill is very close to ours and we will have a compromise bill and veterans will get better care tomorrow than they are getting today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume legislative session and proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with my friend and colleague, Senator Murray, to talk about Social Security. I am going to spend a few moments discussing a bill we are introducing today and then turn it over to Senator Murray.

As you know, Social Security is one of the most important programs ever established in this country. After 75 years, Social Security continues to deliver as intended. It is a promise to Americans. The promise is simple. If you work hard all your life and contribute to the system, then Social Security will be there to help make ends meet when you retire or help out the family if a worker dies or is disabled.

Let me be clear. Despite the naysayers, Social Security is not a handout. Social Security benefits are linked directly to the amount that retirees pay into the system through a lifetime of hard work. But times have

changed and we need to make sure the promise of Social Security continues in a meaningful way. That is why Senator Murray and I introduced the Retirement and Income Security Act yesterday, which we like to call the RAISE Act. It is a commonsense bill to update, enhance, and protect Social Security in a fiscally responsible way.

When it comes to fairness, this bill is a small but important step for seniors, for older women, and for the families of deceased or disabled workers. It makes sure that the modest benefits of Social Security will go to everyone who deserves them.

The RAISE Act has three major components.

It will, first, improve Social Security benefits for divorced spouses. Under current law, the divorced spouse only gets benefits from a former spouse's earnings if they were married for at least 10 years. Under our bill, eligibility rules would be phased in beginning at 5 years of marriage. The spouse would be entitled to 60 percent of the benefits after 6 years of marriage, 70 percent after 7 years, and so on.

Second, our bill will enhance benefits for widows and widowers. It establishes a new enhanced benefit for widows and widowers where both spouses have retired. An alternative calculation in the bill will use both spouses' benefits--deceased and surviving--rather than just the survivor's benefit. The surviving spouse will receive either their current benefit or the new alternative, whichever is greater.

The third component of the RAISE Act extends eligibility for children of retired, disabled or deceased workers. This provision would apply if the child is still in high school, college or vocational or career school. Under current law, minors and high school students under the age of 19 can get Social Security benefits if their parent is a retired, disabled or deceased worker. Beginning in 2016, this provision extends benefits for full-time students up to the age of 23.

Even though Social Security continues to fully pay for itself and has never added a dime to the deficit, I know some of our colleagues will complain that we cannot afford these small enhancements. That is why our bill asks those Americans who can most afford it to pay their fair share towards the strengthening of the Social Security trust fund.

Beginning in 2015, the RAISE Act would apply a 2-percent payroll tax on annual earnings over $400,000. This means that, for future generations, Social Security will continue to be fully funded. In future years, that threshold will increase under an indexing formula built into the bill.

I am a proud sponsor of this bill with Senator Murray. It was an easy decision for me, since my commitment to bolstering Social Security started from day one in the Senate. I have already introduced two other bills on Social Security, and I want to just mention them briefly before I turn it over to Senator Murray.

The first bill is my Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act. It would extend the solvency of Social Security by lifting the cap on high-income contributions, which this year is $117,000. Not everyone knows this, but once your annual income hits that threshold, you no longer have to contribute to Social Security for the rest of the calendar year. This seems unfair to me. My bill would lift the cap and phase out what effectively has become a tax loophole. Higher income Americans would pay into Social Security all year long--just like everyone else. This provision would add generations of financial certainty to Social Security.

The bill would also improve benefits for seniors and others by establishing new cost-of-living adjustments based on reality. The formula would better reflect seniors' financial needs by basing the adjustments on items such as prescription drugs and housing, which seniors pay for, instead of electronics and new cars.

My second bill is the Social Security Fairness Act. It would repeal unfair reductions to Social Security benefits for people who have worked part of their career in noncovered jobs--often State or local government or other civil service jobs.

Congress passed the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset in the 1980s because of fears workers who retire under other pensions would be double covered and Social Security could not afford it. But in effect those old laws are punishing people by reducing benefits they rightfully have earned.

Today, these provisions affect more than 2 million people nationwide, and the number is growing. It is not just about getting back what you paid into the system. Removing these penalties would also encourage people willing to work in public service as a second career--such as police officers or teachers. If you are considering such a move today but know your Social Security benefit would be reduced or penalized because you had stepped forward and worked in public service, why would you do it?

Let's remember one thing about all of these bills--the two I introduced earlier and the RAISE Act we are discussing today. Social Security benefits are vitally important but also are very modest. Nationally, they average $13,500 a year for recipients. It is very important to my State. More than 71,000 people in my State of Alaska rely on Social Security. That is roughly 1 out of 10 Alaskans. Social Security lifts tens of thousands of Alaskans out of poverty--the elderly and especially elderly women--and it pumps more than $1 billion into our economy every single year.

No one is getting rich off of Social Security, but it does provide an important foundation, and it does so in a truly American way: You work, you contribute, and you get something back. As long as I am in Congress, I will fight to make sure Social Security is solvent and there for not only this generation but for generations to come.

Senator Murray has been a longtime champion for Social Security, and I am proud to stand with her on the floor today. Our RAISE Act is another modest improvement. I hope our colleagues will join us in standing up for this critically important program.

Our Social Security system reflects the best of America: hard work, personal responsibility, human dignity, and caring for our parents, our children, our spouses, and our neighbors and ourselves.

Let's come together in this Chamber and do all we can to make sure Social Security is working for all Americans.

With that, I yield the floor for my colleague, Senator Murray.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with my friend and colleague, Senator Murray, to talk about Social Security. I am going to spend a few moments discussing a bill we are introducing today and then turn it over to Senator Murray.

As you know, Social Security is one of the most important programs ever established in this country. After 75 years, Social Security continues to deliver as intended. It is a promise to Americans. The promise is simple. If you work hard all your life and contribute to the system, then Social Security will be there to help make ends meet when you retire or help out the family if a worker dies or is disabled.

Let me be clear. Despite the naysayers, Social Security is not a handout. Social Security benefits are linked directly to the amount that retirees pay into the system through a lifetime of hard work. But times have

changed and we need to make sure the promise of Social Security continues in a meaningful way. That is why Senator Murray and I introduced the Retirement and Income Security Act yesterday, which we like to call the RAISE Act. It is a commonsense bill to update, enhance, and protect Social Security in a fiscally responsible way.

When it comes to fairness, this bill is a small but important step for seniors, for older women, and for the families of deceased or disabled workers. It makes sure that the modest benefits of Social Security will go to everyone who deserves them.

The RAISE Act has three major components.

It will, first, improve Social Security benefits for divorced spouses. Under current law, the divorced spouse only gets benefits from a former spouse's earnings if they were married for at least 10 years. Under our bill, eligibility rules would be phased in beginning at 5 years of marriage. The spouse would be entitled to 60 percent of the benefits after 6 years of marriage, 70 percent after 7 years, and so on.

Second, our bill will enhance benefits for widows and widowers. It establishes a new enhanced benefit for widows and widowers where both spouses have retired. An alternative calculation in the bill will use both spouses' benefits--deceased and surviving--rather than just the survivor's benefit. The surviving spouse will receive either their current benefit or the new alternative, whichever is greater.

The third component of the RAISE Act extends eligibility for children of retired, disabled or deceased workers. This provision would apply if the child is still in high school, college or vocational or career school. Under current law, minors and high school students under the age of 19 can get Social Security benefits if their parent is a retired, disabled or deceased worker. Beginning in 2016, this provision extends benefits for full-time students up to the age of 23.

Even though Social Security continues to fully pay for itself and has never added a dime to the deficit, I know some of our colleagues will complain that we cannot afford these small enhancements. That is why our bill asks those Americans who can most afford it to pay their fair share towards the strengthening of the Social Security trust fund.

Beginning in 2015, the RAISE Act would apply a 2-percent payroll tax on annual earnings over $400,000. This means that, for future generations, Social Security will continue to be fully funded. In future years, that threshold will increase under an indexing formula built into the bill.

I am a proud sponsor of this bill with Senator Murray. It was an easy decision for me, since my commitment to bolstering Social Security started from day one in the Senate. I have already introduced two other bills on Social Security, and I want to just mention them briefly before I turn it over to Senator Murray.

The first bill is my Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act. It would extend the solvency of Social Security by lifting the cap on high-income contributions, which this year is $117,000. Not everyone knows this, but once your annual income hits that threshold, you no longer have to contribute to Social Security for the rest of the calendar year. This seems unfair to me. My bill would lift the cap and phase out what effectively has become a tax loophole. Higher income Americans would pay into Social Security all year long--just like everyone else. This provision would add generations of financial certainty to Social Security.

The bill would also improve benefits for seniors and others by establishing new cost-of-living adjustments based on reality. The formula would better reflect seniors' financial needs by basing the adjustments on items such as prescription drugs and housing, which seniors pay for, instead of electronics and new cars.

My second bill is the Social Security Fairness Act. It would repeal unfair reductions to Social Security benefits for people who have worked part of their career in noncovered jobs--often State or local government or other civil service jobs.

Congress passed the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset in the 1980s because of fears workers who retire under other pensions would be double covered and Social Security could not afford it. But in effect those old laws are punishing people by reducing benefits they rightfully have earned.

Today, these provisions affect more than 2 million people nationwide, and the number is growing. It is not just about getting back what you paid into the system. Removing these penalties would also encourage people willing to work in public service as a second career--such as police officers or teachers. If you are considering such a move today but know your Social Security benefit would be reduced or penalized because you had stepped forward and worked in public service, why would you do it?

Let's remember one thing about all of these bills--the two I introduced earlier and the RAISE Act we are discussing today. Social Security benefits are vitally important but also are very modest. Nationally, they average $13,500 a year for recipients. It is very important to my State. More than 71,000 people in my State of Alaska rely on Social Security. That is roughly 1 out of 10 Alaskans. Social Security lifts tens of thousands of Alaskans out of poverty--the elderly and especially elderly women--and it pumps more than $1 billion into our economy every single year.

No one is getting rich off of Social Security, but it does provide an important foundation, and it does so in a truly American way: You work, you contribute, and you get something back. As long as I am in Congress, I will fight to make sure Social Security is solvent and there for not only this generation but for generations to come.

Senator Murray has been a longtime champion for Social Security, and I am proud to stand with her on the floor today. Our RAISE Act is another modest improvement. I hope our colleagues will join us in standing up for this critically important program.

Our Social Security system reflects the best of America: hard work, personal responsibility, human dignity, and caring for our parents, our children, our spouses, and our neighbors and ourselves.

Let's come together in this Chamber and do all we can to make sure Social Security is working for all Americans.

With that, I yield the floor for my colleague, Senator Murray.

Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer and thank my friend from Oregon.

I appreciate the opportunity to be on the floor today to talk about veterans care. It is an important issue that is not only critical to my State but across the country. As we know, it has been in the papers, on the TV, on the Internet, and everywhere else you can imagine.

There are few more important issues that we work on that have such a critical potential for impact on so many people, when you think about it. These folks have sacrificed so much for us--our veterans--and now it is important for us to make sure they have the proper care for all of their service.

Of course, the VA system is all over the national news, as I mentioned. Whatever you read, everywhere you turn, there is something about the system and what is going on. But I want to talk about Alaska's veterans programs that we are doing up there, especially around health care. For me, veterans are a big deal. It is a big deal because Alaska has so many.

Just to give you the lay of the land, we have over 77,000 veterans in Alaska. Almost 10 percent of the population of my State is veterans who have served this country in many different aspects throughout their careers and coming to Alaska to make it their home.

Along with the 77,000 veterans in Alaska, across the Nation the VA has more than 11 million veterans registered or enrolled.

I have in the Chamber this picture of some rural veterans in Bethel, AK. I enjoyed being out there, and I have a story I will tell in a bit about the impact of some of the things we are doing in rural Alaska.

I think of these veterans like my uncle, U.S. Army Infantryman Joe Begich from up in the Iron Range of Minnesota, who will be there this weekend on an Honor Flight from Minnesota. My family is very proud of his service and the service of my late father-in-law Lou Bonito, who was an Army colonel in Vietnam.

We need to listen to their stories--not just on Memorial Day, not just on the D-day anniversary, which is this Friday. We need to listen to our veterans every single day. They deserve to be heard, just as they deserve to receive the benefits for which they fought.

Make no mistake about it. When I hear from veterans, the vast majority love the VA health care system and what is being provided to them.

I was in Alaska last week and met with veterans from all over the State. We do not have to wait for some headline or for CNN to run some story about what is wrong with the VA system.

My staff and I know what is going on with our care. We have regular meetings with the VA. As a matter of fact, when I first came to the Senate, some of the first issues we dealt with had to do with the VA and trying to make sure the Veterans Administration is dealing with Alaska's unique situation of how diverse it is and how far apart many of these services are in getting to our veterans.

When this issue started coming up on a national level this last week and over the last few weeks regarding the problems, especially in Phoenix--don't get me wrong. I am outraged, as is every American and every Alaskan, about what was going on there and what probably is happening in other VA facilities around the country as we hear about more internal audits being done. But we saw this problem. I saw this problem growing in Alaska. It was clear to me there was inadequate staffing in Alaska, along with some other programmatic problems, and systematic delivery system problems. What it meant was in Alaska, when I saw this problem, we had over almost 1,000 people waiting 2, 3 months for just their initial appointment to get VA health care services. This was unacceptable. So I convened a field hearing in Alaska to look at these issues and figure out what we could do to improve the system.

Today, the average wait time for our VA veterans, our veterans in Alaska, to get their initial appointment is now down to 9 days. As a matter of fact, the list, which we monitor on a regular basis from our office, is down to less than two dozen. That fluctuates from

day to day, but from 900-plus down to a few dozen is an incredible system change.

We didn't sit around and wait, as I said earlier, for some story to bust loose or someone to get some bumper sticker out there or make some political hits. We saw the problem and we took action. I was aggressive about it. I didn't sit around and wait for the Veterans' Administration to come up with an answer; I participated, as did my staff, because these results are real. As a matter of fact, Alaska is a model around the country on how to do this, because we figured out how to partner with folks around the State to make sure the highest priority-- delivering health care to our veterans--was done, and especially in our very rural areas.

I know the State of the Presiding Officer is like my State: very rural, small population, people spread all over the place. Trying to get to their clinic or their hospital for VA care is not as easy. The Presiding Officer is more fortunate because she has road access to a lot of the places. In my State, 80 percent of the State cannot be accessed by roads, but we have veterans throughout Alaska who desperately need to get care. We solved the problem. We didn't sit around and talk about it and do nothing. We actually talked about it and came up with a solution.

When I ran for office, we had the heroes health card, and then we modified it to make sure we could access all we wanted to do. For example, here is a beautiful hospital in Nome, AK. It is way up north. It is a beautiful hospital. Indian Health Service, our tribes, runs an incredible delivery system. It is one of the best in the country when we talk about health care delivery systems. Our Indian health care systems in Alaska are rated in the country as one of the best. But I have 800 veterans, Native and nonnative, who could not access that care in that building. They lived near it. They might live right here, but they couldn't go there. They had to fly hundreds of miles to Anchorage to go to a clinic and if the service wasn't there, they would have to fly to Seattle. Outrageous--800 veterans.

So what did we do? We sat down--and I dragged General Shinseki to Alaska to some very rural areas to give him a little experience about what was going on. Nome, AL, is up north and Anchorage is down here, as we see on this map. Seattle is not even on the map, because it is kind of small, anyway; it is not like Alaska in size. There are hundreds of miles people have to travel. It was not right.

So what did we do? We partnered with our Indian health care services delivered by our tribes--incredible care. Instead of just here and here, it is now everywhere that they can access health care. So that means the veterans have a choice--a choice they did not have before we put this program into place. It is unique to Alaska, and only in Alaska right now. But those 800 veterans now have a choice. They can go to Nome or they can go to Anchorage or to Fairbanks or down to Seattle if they want, but they get a choice now. They don't have to fly hundreds of miles.

What does this do? It saves money for the VA system not paying for airfare, and guess where that money goes: health care for veterans.

I will give an example. The earlier photo I had up here with all of those veterans in Bethel--that was a couple of years ago. I remember telling them about this idea we were trying to implement. They were a little skeptical; they didn't think it would work. This weekend I am in Bethel, AK, in the same VFW hall. This one guy pulls his hand out and shows me all of these scars where he had to get work done, and he says, I had to go to Anchorage to get this done. I thought he was going to get mad at me because that is where he had to go. He says now--these are the Bethel folks up there in the post--now he can go right down the street to get his therapy on his hand.

Do you know what he said to me? He said, Mark, I am able to save my airfare and give more care to my brothers and sisters who served with me in the military. Because he doesn't have to fly to Anchorage. He has a choice. He gets to get his care right there. We went after this issue aggressively, because we knew these veterans fought for our country and deserved the best--the best--and we knew we could offer it through this system.

The other thing: We have been aggressive, as members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, about bringing more resources to veterans and the VA organization. Just in Alaska, in 2010, we had about a $160 million budget. Today, it is over $260 million in 4 years. Why? Because we are implementing programs that have success, that work, that deliver care. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than what they had 5 years ago? Absolutely. We didn't, again, sit around.

It is always amazing to me to go around this place. So many new ideas pop out because they read about it in the paper. Well, do your work. I did. We are getting results. Care is better today than it was 5 years ago. That one veteran--for him, it was incredible. The Presiding Officer knows what it is like when we are out traveling and meeting constituents and they are going to say things and we are not sure they are going to be very nice and friendly. He was a little intense about it. But when he showed me his results, I said, I want to take a picture of your hand, because that hand is the result of the work we are doing, to take 1,000 people off the primary list of waiting, down to a couple of thousands. Instead of waiting 120 days, now it is 8 days. As a matter of fact, when a veteran is enrolled in our delivery system in Anchorage through our tribal delivery system or our community clinic there, a veteran could potentially get--the likelihood is same-day service. They walk in, they get service, no delay, because we have a system that is maximizing our Federal resources. All of those are paid by Federal tax dollars. Why not use them? Use them for the betterment of making sure our veterans have the care they need.

There are a couple of other things we could do right now, and I have written to the VA about this. For example, we have Public Health Service doctors who work in the community health service programs, but they are not in the VA. They have the ability to do it under title 38, I think it is; they just have to make it happen. This is important because we have over 5,000 of these folks in many different professions serving our country. Let's put them to work even more. They are working hard now, but maybe we could deploy them in ways to help our VA.

I also support the proposal in Senator Sanders' bill to increase loan forgiveness for these folks who want to participate in our Public Health Service. Senator Pryor introduced a bill that would increase support for psychiatric services for vets through a pilot program offering loan forgiveness for a gap in our service. We don't have enough.

One thing we also did, to speak about another program for our veterans in rural parts of our country--what did we do? Because sometimes the copay for accessing telehealth medicine is enough to tell people, I don't want to do it. I had a bill on the floor, or a bill that I introduced, but again General Shinseki decided to do it. So now there is no copay if veterans want to access mental health through telemedicine. Why? Because it has proven to be very successful. In remote communities such as in my State and the Presiding Officer's State, we want them to have access to mental health services. We have a limited amount of mental health dollars. So why not create an opportunity to use technology and limit the cost to the VA or to veterans, and give them the services they need? It is critical.

As I said earlier, what happened in Arizona is unacceptable. If it continues, if we see other places where these lists were falsely put together, then people need to be held accountable and prosecuted. But just dealing with that does not solve the problem. Solving the problem means being innovative and thinking out of the box. I have to say, if we can do it in Alaska, in the most remote area of this country, we can do it anywhere. We have a model that is working. We have veterans who like their care, they love their care, they have access they never had before. It is important that we figure out a solution.

I know Senator Sanders' bill is an important bill. I hope we will have it on the floor and we can debate it and ultimately we will get to a bipartisan decision. Because if the Presiding Officer will remember, this bill failed before by two votes. They complained it

cost too much. These are veterans who served our country, who went to war for us to be in this Chamber, to be able to have free education, public education, to be able to have an incredible country. People are for veterans or people are against veterans. It is not a complicated issue. The bill that failed told me where some people were. Some were for veterans and some were against veterans. We had two wars unpaid for, trillions of dollars. Now it comes time to pay the bill for the people who have served our country, and we debate that we can't do that.

We are going to have a bill in short order on providing all kinds of tax extenders for horses in Kentucky to get special tax breaks, but we are not going to pay for that. We are not going to pay for that. But when it comes to veterans: Oh, we have to pay for that. Too bad. No. When that bill comes forward, it is time to see who is for veterans and who is against veterans. It is not complicated. In the tax bill there are special deductions for horse racing. We are not going to pay for it. Somehow, horses are important.

Veterans are important. This is an issue we take care of. Complaining about what it will cost--veterans have paid the ultimate price. They have served our country. And the people who are not coming back have served and paid the ultimate price.

My poor staff sometimes wonders where I am going with my presentation. I get pretty outraged about this, because in Alaska veterans are an important issue. This country is important. And for us to debate the few couple billion or a few hundred million that we are complaining about--some people have--we have spent $2 trillion-plus on wars. It is time for us to pay the debt to these veterans.

I know we are going to have a hearing this week in the committee. We will be working on the bill that Senator Sanders has put together and I have participated in, as has every other member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. It is time to do the right thing for our veterans.

I appreciate the opportunity to be on the floor. As an Alaskan I recognize the importance of our veterans. I believe everyone in this Chamber recognizes the importance of our veterans. But they will have a chance. They will have an opportunity to decide if they are for veterans or if they are against veterans. If they come down with convoluted Washington, DC, doublespeak about how they can't do the bill because of this or that--people are fed up in this country. I know when I go back home, they just ask me a very simple question: Can we get better health care for our veterans? Can we access the GI bill to make sure veterans get an opportunity to get a better education? Is there an opportunity for them to take the skill they learned in the military and put it to work to get a job? These are the things we should be fighting for.

I have a feeling we will be down here with some Members quibbling over some small detail because they really don't want to pass the bill. Again, they are for veterans or they are against veterans. It is not complicated.

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

I wish to speak as if in morning business to talk about one issue, IRS overreach.

Before I do that, I do want to say to my friend who just spoke, I am one of those who loves biennial budgets. I think it is a great idea and one we should continue to work toward. It makes work a little bit better and we also get a little bit longer planning horizon.

IRS Overreach

Mr. President, I come to the floor because there has been a lot of talk recently in different areas about the IRS, and virtually none of it is good. Let me be clear. The IRS going after taxpayers for debts allegedly incurred by their dead relatives is shocking. Tax-delinquent employees with IRS bonuses are offensive. Targeting individuals or groups for their political beliefs is unacceptable. But today I want to talk about a different issue: a vital industry in my State crushed by overbearing IRS enforcement of their own incomprehensible regulations.

Folks who have been to Alaska know we have some of the most beautiful terrain in the world. Most of the best sights, however, are off the road system. What does that mean? That means you cannot drive to them. That means if you want to visit a remote part of the Denali National Park or try to spot some bears or go to a great fishing area, the easiest way to do that is by airplane.

Companies that provide these sightseeing services are overwhelmingly small businesses, mom-and-pop operators. They aren't tax attorneys. They aren't CPAs. They are pilots. They live to fly. As you can see right here, this is an incredible view right outside of a glacier where a small plane has just landed. That is why it is so devastating that at least one of these businesses had to sell its plane to pay the IRS and close up shop forever. Countless others live under the cloud of uncertainty because the IRS goes to extraordinary lengths to find them liable for taxes. In fact, one company received this massive tax bill, including penalties, even after they had negotiated with the IRS and received a favorable resolution. In other words, this bill came after they had agreed with the IRS to get rid of these penalties and these interest charges and everything else. The IRS said there was a little mixup, and maybe for them that is all it was, but for a small business it could mean financial ruin. Also, getting a bill like this would drive you crazy after you just had a conversation with the IRS and resolved this.

Let me give a little history. Air transportation is usually subject to excise taxes, which go to a trust fund for airports, much like the gas tax pays for the highway trust fund. But since 1970 Congress has made it crystal clear that these excise taxes shouldn't apply to small aircraft, the type shown in the first photo.

Here is another example. These types of planes have not been subject to excise taxes since 1970, unless they are flying regularly scheduled routes, such as the route I take going back home to Alaska. I fly from the airport in Washington, DC, to Seattle and then to Anchorage. Those are regularly scheduled flights.

But the IRS brought down the enforcement hammer on some businesses in Nevada and Alaska. Those companies sued the IRS and eventually lost. So Congress came back again in 2005 and said, look, we meant what we said in 1970. Small aircraft used for sightseeing are supposed to be exempt from excise tax--pretty simple, pretty clear, not complicated.

But the IRS doesn't get it. The IRS still won't listen to Congress. The IRS still thinks it can ignore the plain meaning of the law backed by clear congressional intent. A lot of folks around here talk about Federal overreach. This is a perfect example of Federal overreach. Congress told the IRS not once but twice: Small aircraft offering sightseeing services should not have to collect excise taxes, and still the IRS thumbed its nose at Congress and says, ``We'll do whatever we like,'' in clear contradiction to the plain meaning of the statute that was supposed to be upheld.

That is not the way this country is supposed to work. Agencies such as the IRS don't get to go it alone. They are bound by the Constitution to enforce and follow the laws that Congress writes.

I was pleased about a recent letter that was written to the Alaska Air Carriers Association in which the IRS acknowledged their guidance was unclear and inappropriately enforced. They offered to give refunds to companies flying small aircraft on sightseeing tours. While it is a step in the right direction to recognize they got it wrong, they refused to back down completely. The IRS is still reserving the right to go after these same companies in the future.

That is why I called the IRS Commissioner into my office last week and that is why I am here today, to make it clear to the IRS that I will not stand idly by while they send Alaskan small businesses into bankruptcy. I will keep coming here as long as I have to, until the IRS lets Alaskan small businesses do what they do best: Fly and share all of the beautiful sights my great State of Alaska has to offer to all Alaskans and all Americans.

It is happening in Alaska. It is starting to happen in other States. My guess is this will go anywhere there are sightseeing planes to be determined from the IRS perspective that they know what is best. The law is clear. The IRS in their letter made it clear that their interpretation of the law may be unclear and inappropriately enforced. Well, if it is wrong, don't enforce it, or enforce it the way it was set out in 1970 and 2005. If you put someone in a plane and take them out for sightseeing, they are exempt. There is no rate or schedule.

Here is what is also amazing about this. I will go to this first photo again, the one with the glacier. They are restricted as to where they can go. So when the IRS says they flew from point A to point B on a regular basis, that is because they are regulated by the Federal Government to go to that location. I think this visitor would love to fly all around the glaciers, but they are not allowed to by Federal law. So they are sightseeing, and the law is clear about this. But, once again, the IRS has determined what they think the

law is. The FAA, which regulates the air industry, makes it clear who is sightseeing and who is regularly scheduled. So I would plead with the IRS to do the right thing here, settle this issue once and for all and make it crystal clear. The law has been passed by Congress--not once but twice. It is time to get off the backs of these small businesses, small business people, not only in my State but across this country. Ensure they can do their business, and make sure the great sights of Alaska can be seen by anybody anytime through these great tour operators who operate in my State and the operators all around the country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I come to speak in support of the Shaheen- Portman bill, otherwise known as the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. As I like to put it, it

saves money and saves energy. Keep it simple.

It comes at an important time, and it is no surprise that as someone from Alaska, I care about oil and gas issues, energy issues, energy efficiency. This is a bill that is important to talk about but also hopefully to pass and move to the House to take up.

Conservation makes sense. It saves money and makes people more comfortable in their homes and workplaces and also is good for the economy and environment. It is particularly important to Alaska.

Alaska's per capita energy costs are the highest in the Nation. We have long and cold winters, limited infrastructure in rural parts of the State, and we spend more on energy than anywhere else. So we have the most to gain from energy efficiency improvements. In Alaska, energy costs affect every aspect of life. Energy costs are driving people away from the traditional homes in rural Alaska. It is getting too expensive to heat even the smallest of homes. The cost of fuel to run your boat or snow machine for subsistence hunting and fishing is sky-high. In Fairbanks, AK, filling your fuel tank to heat your home could easily cost you $1,900, and that may only last half of the winter. Electric heat isn't much better. Right now in Fairbanks electricity costs 19 cents per kilowatt, which is not a good alternative to heat your home. Bundling all the costs of energy together puts a lot of pressure on the pocketbook.

That is why I fought to get a permit to restart the Healy coal plant and make sure the existing coal plant at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, is exempt from EPA regulations. We need to stabilize energy costs while making investments in energy efficiency; otherwise, communities such as Fairbanks will become unaffordable to live in.

For schools in Alaska, 75 percent of the energy costs goes into space heating. Money that is spent on heating and electricity is money they cannot spend in the classroom, making sure we have the best education for our young people. As an example, the State of Alaska alone spends $62 million a year on energy, one-tenth of the State's operating budget.

Our State provides energy to the rest of the Nation. Yet our residents can't afford to live where they want to live or in many cases where their families have lived for generations. Energy efficiency can have an immediate and profound effect on the lives of people in these communities.

The Shaheen-Portman bill is deficit neutral. It is estimated that by 2030 it will save consumers $60 billion and create nearly 160,000 jobs, a good sign after this month's jobs report of almost 280,000 jobs added to the private sector and to our economy.

I filed an amendment to provide a $5,000 tax credit toward the purchase of energy-efficient home heating and cooling appliances for families living in very high energy consumption States; for example, converting a home from expensive heating fuel to cleaner, more efficient natural gas or clean-burning woodstoves, even replacing appliances with newer and more energy-efficient models to cut back on electric use and lower energy bills. For example, an ENERGY STAR certified refrigerator uses 20 percent less energy than the current standard and 40 percent less energy than the standard in 2001.

As many of my colleagues have expressed, it is disappointing that this Senate takes so long to deal with a fairly modest bill. Let's be honest. While it is all good policy, this is very modest legislation. Congress has not passed major energy legislation since 2007, and the energy landscape has radically changed. The costs of renewable energy have decreased drastically as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and biomass resources have grown all across this country. A rational energy policy for our Nation includes both renewable and nonrenewable energy resources.

Directional drilling, hydraulic fracturing has changed the traditional energy production landscape too. Production is way up. After Saudi Arabia and Russia, the United States is traditionally the third largest producer of crude. The final numbers are not in yet for 2013, but it looks as though we are about to be No. 1 or very close to it. Yet we still rely too much on foreign oil.

The United States consumes about 19 billion barrels of oil per day. All told, about 13 million barrels per day of our demand is supplied by U.S. products--crude, natural gas liquids, and ethanol. It still leaves another 5 to 6 million barrels per day from other countries, many of whom don't like us very much, and that is where Alaska comes in.

We can play a significant role by providing U.S. production and creating some good jobs too. The potential is huge. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline delivers 550,000 barrels a day, just over 10 percent of the domestic oil production. That is down from a peak of 2 million barrels a day 25 years ago, but there is a lot more oil and gas to go after.

Producers of oil and gas create incredibly high-paying jobs. The average sector wage in Alaska is $117,000, and we can produce more jobs.

After 20 years of stagnant growth, we started development in the Arctic again with the Chukchi and Beaufort exploration wells in 2012. We are making strides to return in the summer of 2015. Alaska can ensure our energy security and economic prosperity through development of our domestic resources, thereby reducing our reliance on foreign oil.

Our picture very clearly shows the volume of capacity in Alaska and where we fit in in the world, and this is just what we know about. If we add Cook Inlet to it--let me give you the sense of the potential in the Arctic. Chukchi has 15.4 billion barrels of oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of gas. Beaufort has 8.2 billion barrels of oil and 28 trillion cubic feet of gas. NPR-A has 1 billion barrels of oil.

The issue of the NPR-A, which is the National Petroleum Reserve--this area has only had slight exploration over the years, and now we are starting to develop in that area. We have now moved forward on the first well.

I was very pleased that one of my first acts, working with the administration, was getting the administration to see the light of day and solving the problem with the first issue of the CD-5. Production at the first well--one well, one development--is at 17,000 barrels a day. The second one is right next door, which is called GMT-1, and will produce another 30,000 or 40,000 barrels of oil a day. And, of course, there is ANWR, which we estimate has around 10-plus billion barrels of oil. Again, Alaska is a storehouse of energy, not only oil and gas, but many others.

The point I want to make is that the oil and gas industry--the study that was done in Alaska--can produce 54,000 jobs and has over 50 years worth of production in the Arctic. If you look at it from local and State and government revenues over the 50 years, it is well over $100 billion, plus another $150 billion in payroll.

Another issue, which is important to Alaska, and also to this country is the liquefied natural gas export. A project can produce many jobs and create huge economic opportunity throughout this country. We estimate a project that will move gas off the North Slope, which will then be distributed around the world, will be worth about $65 billion in development. There will be an 800-mile pipeline, liquefication plant, and marine terminal. It will be the largest and most expensive energy project in North America. It will create up to 15,000 design and construction jobs, and up to 1,000 jobs during operation. LNG will have an export capacity of 2.5 billion cubic feet a day of natural gas sales to overseas buyers which can total more than $12 billion a year.

The steel pipe to construct that 800-mile pipeline, which is 42 inches in diameter--almost an inch thick--is so big that it will take a single pipe mill 2 years to produce that. This will only add to the important role the oil and gas industry plays in the national economy.

Nine percent of all the jobs in 2011 came from the oil and gas sector and 37,000 direct jobs were created nationwide. As I said earlier, they are good-paying jobs.

I have two or three more points to make before I close. As I talk about oil and gas, it is not only important for Alaska's economy, it is also an important part of the whole energy system in this country. We have a huge amount of it. We are happy the Arctic is moving forward. Again, this project was stalled for many years, but it is now moving in the right direction.

The same was true for the NPR-A. It was stalled out for many years, but now it is moving in the right direction.

Alaska is unique in many ways. This bill talks about energy conservation and what we can do to preserve the capacity of our energy use. By 2025, Alaska will be at 50 percent renewable energy internal consumption. We embrace conservation everywhere we can.

I can tell you from my own experience that not only is my home energy-efficient, but the commercial buildings that I operate are also energy-efficient. We have new boiler systems that are 98 percent more efficient. As a result, we are saving the tenants lots of money every year. We installed new energy-efficient windows, and other elements, which have made those buildings more efficient, thereby saving them money and allowing us to put more money back into the complexes.

Even though this is not a comprehensive bill, it is a piece of legislation that gets us to do some energy policy in this country down the road.

The Presiding Officer lives on the east coast, and I live in Alaska, so we are far apart by thousands of miles, but we still have the same issues. Consumers want more efficient facilities and more efficient buildings to lower their costs so they can save money and more energy so they can create new development--new economic development. That is what this bill does in many ways.

By creating conservation and creating more energy-efficient legislation, such as this, we are creating jobs just by this act. I think it is important that we look at this bill from a broad perspective and do what we can to make ourselves more dependent on our own energy sources, be they oil and gas or energy-efficient renewable energy or energy-efficient projects. The more we are dependent on our own resources and less dependent on foreign oil, the better off we will be from a national security perspective and from an economic perspective.

I will leave with one statistic. Because of all the work to become more dependent on our own energy resources and more energy efficient, we are sending $100 billion less overseas to foreign countries for petro oil over this last year.

I appreciate having a moment to talk on the floor. I am not only interested in talking about Alaska's oil and gas, but also how we can improve energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy. There is nothing that pits one against the other. It is all about the projects and working together.

I thank the Presiding Officer and note the absence of a quorum.

Before the Senator leaves I would like to ask him a quick question if I could. I know he talked toward the end of his comments-- and I am going to speak on minimum wage also--but he mentioned President Reagan. I think the last time minimum wage passed was under President Bush, again a bipartisan approach; is that correct? I wasn't here during those times, but I know the Senator has served in Congress a long time.

The $10.10 wage is just getting to the poverty level. That is what I understand and why I cosponsored this legislation.

Thank you for giving me a moment to ask those questions.

I rise to address an important issue--just as we were asking some questions back and forth--that would help 49,000 Alaskans, raising the minimum wage. The bill before us would increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.

The minimum wage, as mentioned by my colleagues a little earlier, has lost its purchasing power by one-third over my lifetime. The increase will lift millions of Americans out of poverty, reduce their reliance on the safety net, and literally pump billions more into the economy.

I know I look at this a little differently. I come from the business world. I come from the small business world. My first business was at the age of 14. I have been in it ever since in some form or another. You can probably name the business--retail, real estate. I have been a publisher. I have owned different companies, and I have even owned a small, very small, percentage of a restaurant. I felt like I was a 100- percent owner at one point because it is a tough business. I was in there moving the slop buckets and doing a remodel to the kitchen on a Saturday night. I am there like everyone else working double time and trying to make sure we get the job done.

My wife is a small retailer. Her business is selling smoked salmon on a counter or a cart--no bigger than two of these desks--and building her business now to 5 retail stores, 30-some employees. I might note none of our employees are paid minimum wage. They are paid above minimum wage.

I know some people are concerned minimum wage will cut into their business. There is no question in my mind what it does; that is, when we increase the minimum wage, it is actually good for business because we help consumers have more resources to put into the economy that then churn back into the business world.

Along with this bill another provision a lot of people don't realize is the minimum wage is one piece, a pretty significant piece but also a provision that I requested be put in this bill, what they call a 179. It is a business tax deduction, something that is important for businesses that are growing, expanding, building new business, small businesses mostly.

This is the No. 1 priority of the business community that I talk to, not the politically driven business communities but the ones that actually do business and actually work with small businesses, the ones that look at their local communities and try to figure out what is important in legislation. One is to make sure they can write off

some of their improvements in an expedited way which, in turn, puts more money into the business for reinvestment. That is another piece of this bill.

So it not only has an important part for the hard-working folks who are making minimum wage to raise that amount, but it also helps the hard-working small businesses ensure that they can continue to put money back in their business, grow their business, expand their business, and then receive some benefit from that.

As we know, we look at the whole issue in Alaska a little differently. Our minimum wage is 50 cents higher than the Federal level, $7.75. There is a reason: Because it is very expensive, similar to the Presiding Officer's State. It is not cheap in our two States, Hawaii and Alaska. The cost of living is much greater. In order for folks to have a decent living, we pay a little bit more, and we play it off of the Federal legislation, but still it is a problem in keeping the wage competitive to the cost of living.

When we look at Alaska and we look at the cost of living in Alaska-- Anchorage specifically is 30 percent higher than the average cost of living in this country and Fairbanks is 40 percent higher. Again, having this higher ratio for us is very important.

It doesn't mean all the time that a dollar still goes far. When we look at the whole country, in terms of buying power, what you can buy for the dollar you earn, Alaska has 3 of the cities in the bottom 11. When you look at the whole list, there are 11 at the bottom. Alaska has three of them: Juneau, Kodiak, and Fairbanks, because their dollar can't go far enough. That is why raising the minimum wage will help them be able to purchase more and enjoy a better quality of life.

I will say Alaskans, similar to Hawaiians, know challenges, and we have tough jobs because we are kind of isolated lots of times and sometimes forgotten that we actually exist in the Union. And we have to make that point more than once. But it doesn't matter if we are doing the drilling in the Arctic, which is a great challenge, or fishing for crab in the Bering Sea, which is an unbelievable test of someone's capacity and ability, but we know how to overcome challenges. We just don't want more challenges.

A minimum wage increase will help reduce some of those challenges. The minimum wage is truly, at the rate it is today, an obstacle to try to get people moved forward because we don't have it at the rate it should be. The $10.10, in a lot of minds, is an easy step over a 2- to 3-year period, and it is honestly one we can fix. We can fix it tomorrow. We just need a bipartisan approach as it happened under the Reagan administration, it happened under the Bush administration. Again, to remind folks who may not be familiar with those two Presidents, they were Republicans. We did it, and I wasn't here, but Democrats and Republicans sat down and said: Let's figure this out because it is important for the working people of this country who are working hard every day.

Another group it impacts in my State of 49,000 Alaskans is 1,700 veterans--veterans in our country, veterans in my State who will get a boost.

What does that mean? When you calculate by family members, it is about 3,000 families of veterans will benefit from raising the minimum wage. As I said earlier, it is 49,000 Alaskans, and this is one subset. More than half of the Alaskans are women. About 5,000 Alaskans will be boosted right out of poverty with this change, and it means they will be on less government programs such as food stamps.

I would think we are all here to try to make government run more efficiently, improve the economy, and create jobs. That is what we do every day, we attempt to do every day, and we do every day. If we can get people above poverty, that means fewer government programs, which means fewer government tax dollars, which means they are living on their own and they have their own capacity to make it in this world.

One would think this is a unique opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to be joined together. Why wouldn't we want fewer people on food stamps because they are making a living now and able to take care of themselves? That is what we all work toward, to have the American dream to buy that home or live that quality of life, have that great education, all the pieces to the equation.

Again, I cannot believe we are having a struggle trying to get just a few votes. We don't want them all. We get there are some who are opposed to anything about the Federal Government, but why not support this effort to raise people up as President Reagan thought about and President Bush thought about.

It is this moment, giving these people a fair shot, a fair shot to have their American dream come true; $10.10 doesn't seem like a big stretch, but it seems today it is by some politicians.

In fact, when we look at this--and I know the complaint on the other side is this will hurt business. Again, as I said earlier, this is good. You are talking to someone who is a small businessperson, who pays above minimum wage. I understand the value of making sure my employees, my wife's employees, have a good, decent wage, because when they leave the workplace, when they get their paycheck, they will spend it in the economy. That will help grow the economy.

I know some will talk about the CBO report and all of these government reports, but let me put it this way. The last two times the minimum wage has been raised, the economy didn't collapse, people weren't fired--actually, the economy grew. So I don't understand that comment and debate.

I know they will whip out these reports, and I am appreciative of those and the work CBO does, but I can only go by history and what has happened. If we raise the minimum wage, jobs are great, economy grows, and the next issue is businesses are reinvesting because they have more customers, which means more customers more profit. More profit means more investment. This is not only a fair shot for the people working, it gives an opportunity for small businesses and businesses across this country.

To put it in perspective for my colleagues who have never been in small business or have not run a business, the reason you hire people is because you have demand. Demand is created by expenditures, expenditures by consumers.

The reason you lay off people is because demand has gone down because there are not expenditures by consumers. Raising the minimum wage gives more opportunity, more investment, more people making money, and more return.

Let me give some national statistics. Again, this is about making sure we give every American, especially those making a minimum wage today--a raise in their minimum wage, to give them a fair shot to be part of the American dream.

The bill will help 30 million Americans earning an additional $51 billion to put back into the economy over the next 3 years by this raise--huge. The family who today can't afford the new car can now maybe look at a new car or maybe they are choosing between groceries and paying their heating bill. Now because you are raising the minimum wage they have an opportunity to pay these bills and enjoy life a little bit more.

The higher minimum wage will also help 12 million people in our country to get out of poverty. It could lift 4.6 million out of poverty immediately.

This is about empowering families, giving them a fair shot, a chance again to achieve the American dream, helping parents to make ends meet and to raise children in a healthy home and an opportunity for them. More than a one-fifth of all children in our country have a parent on minimum wage; 56 percent on a national level are women making the minimum wage.

Right now, thousands of Alaskans work full time--maybe extra work on the side--but still struggle to put food on the table. It is wrong. That is why raising the minimum wage will be helpful to those families. It saves the government money by helping people get off food stamps. Also, higher wages would cut, as I said, food stamps, they estimate by $4.6 billion a year. We have been very good at moving the deficit down--a $1.4 trillion deficit annually, down a little over $500 billion and continuing to go down. I think we all want to see that deficit go to zero.

The way we do that is with programs such as this that engage the private sector and their responsibility, at the same time lowering costs for the government. Also, an interesting statistic

is that it also increases the wages, obviously, by the minimum wage going up. So it increases and strengthens Social Security because now they are paying into Social Security. Social Security contributions from an extra $51 billion in wages would go right to the trust fund. Since benefits are tied to lifetime earnings, workers will earn larger checks when they retire. Right now an average minimum wage worker with 40 years of paying into the system receives only 900 bucks, give or take a few bucks, at the age of 65. That is well below the poverty line.

So why wouldn't we want to raise the minimum wage, move people out of poverty, get more people off of food stamps, save the government some money, and, by the way, help strengthen Social Security and give families and individuals a fair shot to meet and reach the American dream? Why wouldn't we want to do that? Again, under the Reagan administration and the Bush administration, they seemed to think it was a good idea.

I agree with the Senator from Illinois who was on the floor a little while ago. If we weren't in this toxic political environment where everything has to be politicized until the last man is standing, we would probably do this. We would be down here together talking about how it would help our folks in our different States and in our communities and in the country overall. Instead, everyone wants to just kind of even the scorecard. This is not about a scorecard; this is about giving a fair shot to Americans, to Alaskans, so they have a chance to make a living and meet and reach the American dream.

This is a simple thing for us to do, and we could do it tomorrow. I don't know what the House will do, but maybe if we act in a bipartisan way here, the House will see that. Maybe they will wake up and see this is a good thing to do because if we want to build the economy, if we want to make a difference, as I said--and I am talking as a small businessperson--if we grow the amount of money consumers spend by making sure they make a good living, the net result will be that every businessperson benefits because they have more consumers, more people buying products. In turn, everything from manufacturing, to shipping to the retailer, to the large business, the small business--all benefit.

Again, it is amazing to me that we debate this issue. Actually, I was not planning to come to the floor until last week because I thought this should be easy. Why are we not doing this? Republican Presidents saw it as a good idea. Now that it has been a long time coming, it is time.

I know some don't like the current President. I have my issues with him, I can tell you that. The list is long. But we should not get caught up in the personalities. I tell my staff all the time--when I get a piece of legislation a Member is proposing, I say: Don't look at who is sponsoring; look at the content of the bill. If we like the bill, we sign on. We participate. Too much time is spent here worrying about who is sponsoring what, who is on the list, who made the comment. Who cares? If it is a good piece of legislation, then we should do it.

In my State we will have raising the minimum wage on the November ballot because Alaskans signed an initiative--35,000 or 40,000 people-- saying this is the right thing to do for Alaska. I think it is the right thing to do not only for Alaska but for this country. It is important that we do this because it is our obligation to make sure for Alaskans and for all Americans that we don't create obstacles in their ability to reach the American dream, that we make sure they have a fair shot at anything they want to do.

I hope tomorrow we will have a different outcome than the pundits are predicting. They think it will fail tomorrow. I hope not. But if we fail tomorrow and don't get enough votes from the other side, it is not that we lose the battle today but that the American people lose. Alaskans lose. The 49,000 Alaskans I mentioned will lose. The 1,700 veterans in my State will lose. Let's try to do something to make them winners and give them a shot.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, this month, 46 veterans from the Last Frontier and Golden Heart Chapters of the Honor Flight Network are traveling from Alaska to Washington, DC, to visit their memorials. I know you will join me in welcoming these heroes to our Nation's capital and recognizing their service to our Nation.

I would like to record the individual names of those who traveled from Alaska to be here today. World War II Veterans of the Alaska Territorial Guard: Mr. Wesley Aiken, Mr. Gust Bartman, Mr. Sigurd L. Edwards, Mr. Daniel E. Henry, Sr., Mr. Daniel K. Karmun, Mr. David U. Leavitt, Sr., Mr. Henry H. Neligan, and Mr. Vincent Tocktoo, Sr. World War II Veterans: Mr. William R. Alter, Army; Mr. Bruce E. Arndt, Army; Ms. Nancy Baker, Army Air Corp; Mr. Robert H. Breakfield, Navy; Mr. William E. Bush, Marines; Mr. Norman H.V. Elliott, Army; Mr. David K. Fison, Navy; Mr. Frank E. Flavin, Army; Mr. Kirtley E. Franse, Air Force & Army; Mr. Malven R. Gaither, Navy; Mr. Eldon L. Gallear, Merchant Marines; Mr. George G. Gilbertson, Navy; Mr. Warren G. Hackney, Merchant Marines; Mr. Arthur Hammer, Air Force, Mr. Robert P. Harrison, Army; Mr. Donald M. Hoover, Navy; Mr. Robert L. Johnston, Navy; Mr. Willard J. Jorgensen, Army; Mr. Robert W. Kittleson, Navy & Air Force; Mr. Gordon E. Kler, Navy; Mr. Thomas Lewis, Navy; Mr. Gerald J. Lind, Air Force & Army; Ms. Bette-Rae Mattoon, Navy WAVE; Mr. Roby S. Mchone, Army; Mr. Leon N. Merkes, Army; Mr. George R. Painter, Merchant Marines; Ms. Charlotte K. Schwid, Army; Mr. Joseph E. Stanger, Air Force; Ms. Francis A. Swaim, Army; Mr. George C. Swift, Coast Guard; Mr. James H. Weaver, Army; and Mr. Edward C. Willis, Merchant Marines. Korean War Veterans: Mr. William Blocolsky, Navy; Ms. Lorane J. Mobley, Navy; and Mr. Richard C. Sullivan, Marines. Vietnam War Veterans: Mr. Roger W. Brooks, Army; Mr. Alan L. Coble, Army; and Mr. Clifford E. Mobley, Army.

These veterans from Alaska join over 118,000 other veterans from across the land who, since 2005, have traveled to our Nation's capital to visit and reflect at memorials built here in their honor. This Honor Flight was made possible by generous public donations and contributions from those who wish to honor these heroes.

We owe so much to our active duty military and veterans who put themselves in harm's way for our country and protect our freedoms. Without their courage, commitment and sacrifice, we would not enjoy the liberties we cherish today.

On behalf of a grateful Nation, I extend my sincerest gratitude. I also extend my thanks to the staff, volunteers

and supporters of the Honor Flight program who make these trips possible.

Again, thank you to all Alaska veterans and volunteers for their dedication, commitment, and service.

Madam President, today I wish to thank Renee Henderson for her 43 years of outstanding service to the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, Kenai community, and Kenai Central High School on the occasion of her retirement.

Since her first day working for the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District on August 30, 1971, Ms. Henderson has taught over 13,000 students. Ms. Henderson provided students with many life-changing experiences, including traveling to destinations across the world to perform.

Ms. Henderson has contributed to the Kenai Peninsula community through her hard work and dedication. She has touched thousands of lives by being a world-class musical professional. It is only appropriate through her contributions to the community that the school's auditorium was named the Renee C. Henderson Auditorium. She has shared her appreciation for the gift of music, through her concerts, tours, private lessons and choir program, to help countless young people nurture their musical gifts and enrich the world around them.

Along with Senator Lisa Murkowski, I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to Renee for her many years of educational excellence. We wish the absolute best to her as she begins this next stage in her life.

Madam President, I wish to recognize Special Olympics Alaska for their outstanding job in improving the lives of those with intellectual disabilities.

Special Olympics was founded by the late Eunice Mary Kennedy Shriver in 1962. Mrs. Shriver saw how unfairly people with intellectual disabilities were treated and founded Camp Shriver, which eventually evolved to Special Olympics in 1968. Special Olympics Alaska also traces its beginnings back to 1968, when they held their first State games in 1969 in Fairbanks. Since then, the Special Olympics Alaska programs have grown to include over 500 athletes and 1,000 volunteers around the State.

Through sports, the athletes are able to see what they are capable of achieving and quickly gain confidence. I have seen firsthand how Special Olympics Alaska uses the power of sports to help athletes learn about friendly competition and sportsmanship, as well as provide them with an opportunity to make friendships that will last a lifetime.

In 2001, Anchorage hosted the Special Olympics World Winter Games. More than 1,800 athletes representing 70 countries competed in 7 Olympic-type winter sports--making this the largest sporting event ever held in the history of Alaska. This year, Special Olympics Alaska will open its first Athlete Training Center and Campus in Anchorage on May 8. This facility will give the athletes a dedicated facility to practice and prepare for future games in which they will represent Alaska.

I would like to recognize Special Olympics Alaska and all the work they do to improve the lives of people with intellectual disabilities. I wish the absolute best to the athletes, families and supporters as they transition into their new training center.