Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana very much. I am happy to join my friend from Louisiana and my friend from Minnesota. I am a small business owner. I have been from my teenage years. My wife is a small business owner. I understand the plight they go through--how to raise capital, how to start a small business, how to take a dream to reality. Sometimes those dreams do not work out so well, and what happens next?

As we sit here and talk about the short term versus the long term, in business you lay out a business plan. It is a long-term plan. Businesses that set a short-term plan are the ones that have those big banners that say: ``Going out of business.'' Those are the short-term planners in the business world.

We debate today--and I think we are a lot closer than maybe the media likes to portray--but it is a difference between in the next 6 months do we deal with this issue and have another debt limit vote in 6 months from now, and another 6 months later, and 6 months, or do we plan for the long term, get our economy more stable, more certain, so businesses can invest and do the right thing?

As I said at the beginning, any business that you see that has a short-term plan usually has a sign that says: ``Going out of business'' or ``Quitting.''

We are not going to quit. We are going to have a long-term plan.

I heard earlier today my colleague and friend from Georgia, from the other side, who practiced in real estate, Senator Isakson. Both of us have been in the real estate business for many years. As he said, also, we are closer than people think we are. But we have some slight differences, ones we need to make sure we resolve and move to a long- term plan.

Earlier this week, I challenged businesses that want to have a short- term plan to call my office; I would be happy to mention them on the floor of the Senate. I waited and I waited and I waited. No one--not one business--called my office and said: Give me a short-term plan. But I will tell you, several Alaskan businesses did call my office and say: Compromise. Get a long-term plan.

Let me read to you from just a couple.

JoeMarie Thomson from Anchorage owns Crucible Designs, a Web site design firm. She writes:

I'm very concerned about the posturing surrounding the debt

ceiling negotiations. As a small business owner I'm already

seeing the effects of this uncertainty. My clients are also

small business owners and so I am right in the line of fire

on this one.

I've heard from more than a few clients that if the U.S.

defaults on the debt that the resulting interest rates will

put them out of business. With this fear increasing the

closer we get to August 2, it's really hurting my bottom

line.

Another one, Rita Fleckenstein from Anchorage, owns Rita's Family Daycare, a small daycare center for children. Her husband is retired Air Force.

It is my sincere hope that you will try to influence your

other Alaskan partners to take a balanced approach to solve

the current budget crisis. I am a small business owner and

loyal Alaskan voter and I am tired of all this posturing

among the House members.

She is referring to the debate that occurred last night.

A man from Anchorage:

I am a long time Alaskan, father of two, Iraq war veteran,

small business owner, and my small business provides

engineers and managers to the oil and gas industry in Alaska.

I am a registered independent but am conservative in regards

to budgetary issues.

. . . As a small business owner, I would never jeopardize

the well being of my family, my employees, or my clients in

regards to a business agreement or transaction. There is

always room to compromise and allow all parties engaged in

the deal to walk away with the feeling they got a fair deal.

. . . I fully expect increases in my taxes and am ok with

that in order to continue to support our country.

Another one, actually from someone I know well, who owns Arctic Wire and Rope, Eric McCallum. He won Alaskan manufacturer of the year in 1986 and employs 14 people. He is important to our oil and gas industry. Fortunately, Eric has no debt, but he is terribly concerned about the debt crisis. He says small businesses like his are the ``canary in the mineshaft'' and will be negatively impacted more than big businesses. Eric states:

There will be far more impact on Main Street than Wall

Street from this debt crisis.

Eric adds that he is more than willing to pay his fair share to help balance the Federal budget.

These have come in and in and in, and it is amazing to see what people are talking about in my State. There are 68,000 small businesses in Alaska. My wife is one of those. Almost 16,000 employ many employees. The fastest growing segment of our business community in Alaska is small business, growing by almost 31 percent over the last 6 years.

Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, to the Senator from Louisiana, as a small businessperson, all they want to see is certainty. They want the bickering, the partisan bickering to end. They want certainty so they can continue to invest and see their future.

There are just some simple differences that I think the folks from both sides can sit down and work through. One is, clearly, how long

should this debt limit increase go for? As I said earlier, if you do a short term, that is the business that is saying: I quit. I am out of business. If you do a long term, it gives certainty and opportunity to plan and build for the future.

Should we have a vote up or down separate from the debt limit issue on a balanced budget amendment? It is a great debate. More than likely, we will probably have that debate. I have supported a balanced budget amendment before. But it is time we raise the debt limit to create the long-term certainty we need for our small business community not only in Alaska but throughout this country, where they are the backbone that will drive this economy in the right direction.

It is an honor, again, to be down here with the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee. She has worked tirelessly on bill after bill. We were unsuccessful this year on a couple that were critical to small businesses because we could not get past the logjam. Maybe this will break the pathway, if we can get past this debt limit in a bipartisan way, where we can then bring many more other small business bills back to the floor because what I hear most often from Alaskans, beside the frustration of what is going on here, is they want us to focus on building this economy, to get regulation out of the way, to help invest in the needed things to ensure that businesses can create the jobs we desperately need not only for the people who are unemployed today, but for future generations. That is what we need.

So, again, Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. Again, I thank my friend from Louisiana for the opportunity to say a few words but also for her leadership and her continued tenacity to fight for the small businessperson every single day.

I yield the floor.

Just for a question. The way I understand this is, for people who may be watching or listening, a filibuster requires 60 votes. All we are asking for is the same thing the House of Representatives did last night on their bill.

A simple majority, allow an up-or-down vote so we can determine what plan or what action we take. That is all we are asking for.

Mr. President, my friend and colleague from Colorado is always so passionate on the floor when it comes to the issues pertinent not only to his State and his country. He has laid out such a logical case on the debt of this Nation and why we need to deal with it. I will address the debt also.

But I came down here, like the Senator from Colorado, to talk about the FAA reauthorization bill. I was not planning to come down. I was in my office. As Senators, we have lots of meetings, events, activities and photo ops--meet and greets, they call them. People come in and say hello and chit-chat take a few photographs with you. They are residents from your State.

I was sitting there and having a great conversation with young people, four of them from Girls and Boys Nation here from the American Legion Auxiliary: Clara Farley, from Kodiak, Joseph Mueller from Healy, Derick Hanna from Palmer, and Marissa Torgerson from Anchorage. Then there was another young woman who was there, a young leadership student, Jocelyn Cayce from Juneau.

You know, to have a ``photo op'' is what they call them. We shake hands and take some photos. It was interesting having this conversation. The first question they asked me was what was going to happen with the debt of this Nation. Before I elaborate on my thoughts and what I told them, I, first would like to talk about the FAA extension because they are both related. The FAA bill and what is going on with the debt is all related. It is related because of the House majority's inability to function and their inability to do their work.

The FAA is a great example. I know the Senator from Colorado mentioned that the conference committee has not brought out a bill. What is amazing about this is the Senate appointed their conferees in April. For those who are watching, the way this works is the House passes a bill and the Senate passes a bill. They are not always exactly the same, so they go to a joint conference committee made up of Members from the House and Members from the Senate--Democrats and Republicans-- and they work out a compromise. The Senate appointed their Members to the conference committee in April. The House has not appointed anybody.

The battle we are in is because of one person. There is one person who has decided that 4,000 people should be furloughed--about 80 in Alaska--to stop projects that are critical to the safety of air transportation. I can tell you there is no other State that depends on air transportation like Alaska, with 82 percent of our communities not able to be accessed by road, they are predominantly accessed by air. For one person in the House to decide he wants to play politics with aviation safety because he doesn't like something--oddly enough, the items he wanted to eliminate are from States that are represented by Democrats and chairmen of committees. It is unbelievable.

I did not come here 2\1/2\ half years ago to play those games. I came here to do the work the people of Alaska sent me to do. Part of that work was to make sure the Federal Aviation Administration actually has a reauthorization they can operate under because they haven't had it since 2007. I was elected in 2008. There have been 20 short term extensions of the FAA's authority while the House and Senate try to pass legislation and work out the differences. The Senate did pass a bill. We did our work. We did it, and we did it with a lot of debate.

I sit on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee with jurisdiction over the FAA. Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison, Democrat and Republican, worked in a bipartisan manner with all the members. The Senate passed our FAA bill. The House passed theirs, and now we are waiting for the House to appoint conferees. We are waiting for the House to do something. Not one person. That is not how this system should work. They need to appoint conferees so we can sit down and resolve these final minor issues. Instead the chairman in the House decides he knows best.

Here is what happens: Yes, 4,000 FAA employees get furloughed all across this country. These are people who have mortgage payments to make and kids planning to go to college this fall, or maybe they are the only breadwinner in their homes--but 4,000 people are furloughed.

There are 79 FAA employees in Alaska who have been furloughed. Compound that with the next piece of the equation. Part of the FAA reauthorization bill is to invest in our aviation infrastructure. I think I will hit 100,000-plus miles this year, maybe more, 125,000 miles flying back and forth from Washington to my home State, visiting communities all across my State. I pay a small fee like everyone who flies does. We pay for our airline tickets and a portion goes to the FAA, who then invests this money into making our runways and our air traffic facilities safer. It is the people who fly who pay for our aviation system, and their money goes to the FAA to pay for the improvements that we use to make sure we fly safely. It is not complicated. Yet what is happening because the FAA doesn't have the authority to collect this fee, is the airlines and passengers are getting a tax holiday. That fee is important. I will get back to that fee and what has happened with that money.

First, without that money, we cannot do airport construction projects. It is all part of the system. In Alaska it is a pretty important piece.

In Bethel, a project now has a stop-work order issued by the FAA because they cannot complete the project without an extension. As my friend from Colorado mentioned, Colorado has a short construction season, and we have a very short construction season in Bethel, Alaska. We are trying to build a project that improves the approach lights to make it safer for people to land at the Bethel Airport. That project has been stopped. There is no other access to Bethel except by air. Bethel is 400 miles from Anchorage, the largest city in the State, by air. We cannot drive to Bethel. That project has stopped because the House hasn't passed a clean FAA extension.

Another project makes seismic improvements to the air traffic control tower in Anchorage. People say it is just a tower, what does it matter? The

tower is old. It needs improvements. It is not only important for Alaska and the people who would work on the project, it is important for this country. We are the third busiest air cargo airport--in the sense of cargo throughput--in the world. We move products that are produced in this country and around the world through Anchorage. If you are shipping something to Europe or Asia and you are west of the Mississippi, the odds are you are coming through Anchorage's international airport.

Almost 700 wide-body jets fly through Anchorage every single week carrying cargo. It is the third busiest airport in terms of cargo throughput in the world. It is an economic engine. It is a job creator. I remember almost 25 years ago when the idea came from a couple of companies, FedEx and UPS. They said: We will look at Anchorage as our international hub because of its location. Today it is a robust facility and many other airlines cargo carriers use our airport facilities. It is huge.

Instead of the House doing their job and appointing conferees to resolve this issue, one person in the House decided he wanted to play politics over the life-safety of our air traffic system, the Federal aviation system, and now that project is not happening. Not only are the 79 FAA employees furloughed in Alaska, but projects in Bethel and Anchorage are not moving forward. So that means the private contractors--it is not government employees who make these improvements and build lighting systems or remodel the tower. It is private contractors who employ people who then pay mortgages and buy cars and spend money in the economy and help our economy move forward. This is clearly a job-killing action. That is what it is. They will say some other reasons, but that is what it is doing. It is killing jobs, and it is hurting America.

Again, it costs more because when the construction season in Bethel is over in the next month or month and a half, we don't get to come back in November and say we are going to finish this project. We can't. The weather conditions don't allow it.

What will happen is, next year the costs will go up because the private contractor will have to remobilize--I hear a lot from folks on the other side over there in the House talk about the private sector. I am from the private sector. I don't know how many of those guys worked in the private sector, but I have. That is where I made my living, and that is how my wife makes her living, from the private sector. They spout off about how they want to support the private sector. Well, pass the FAA reauthorization legislation that the private sector supports and wants moved forward for the creation of more jobs and the opportunity to make our air safer.

Again, it is astounding to me how dysfunctional the House majority is and how they are unable to do their work. They complained a lot earlier this year that the Senate doesn't do their job, and we are not doing our work. We are doing our work. We passed the Military Construction-VA bill. We passed the FAA bill. We passed several things. They go over there and they die. They go over there, and they have one person who decides they know best.

A lot of those guys ran in 2010 on the effort to open government, 72 hours to review bills, which is great. I have not seen it. They had some Rules Committee meeting earlier last night or whatever late night they did it to set the rules on what they are going to vote on in less than 12 or 13 hours. I am sure that has been notified to a lot of people. It is amazing they ran on the fact that they want to open government, the system is broken, and then it is so dysfunctional over there.

The FAA bill, as I mentioned, these airlines collect fees that then go to the FAA to make sure all this happens. It is part of the fee we pay to travel. Now the FAA is not authorized to collect it, but what happened? Several of these airlines jacked up their fees to collect the money for their own. There is $200 million a week coming from consumers into the pockets of these airlines for their profit, not to improve the safety of the airports, which is what the money is supposed to be designed for. I will say Alaska Airlines--and I am proud to say Alaska Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, and Spirit Airlines are three examples of companies that did not do that. They did not jack up the price to the consumer for their own bottom line. Also, remembering that those fees are for the purpose of improving airports and not improving the corporate profits or the CEO's million-dollar-plus checks they get at the end of the year for the work they do.

The problem is--something like this happened many years ago--we are not going to be able to get those resources back to make sure these airports are safer.

I, of course, implore the airlines to do one of two things: Lower those fares they jacked up or put that money aside and work with Congress to make sure that money goes into the fund to ensure that we improve these airports. I challenge every one of those airlines that have done that.

As a consumer who is watching this issue, you should be appalled that $200 million a week that you thought was going to improve the airports you fly through, it is not. It is going into the pockets for profit for some of these companies. Again, I point out Alaska Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, Spirit Airlines are a few of the only major airlines that are not doing that. I commend them for that. I commend them for doing the right thing by the consumer.

I was originally coming down and going to talk--as I got inspired by the students sitting there--about the budget, but then I wanted to talk about the FAA. I want to get back to the budget.

As I mentioned, these young people came to my office and asked the first question: What are we going to do about the debt? Great. It is the question of the day. What are we going to do? We can debate how we got here. Everyone got us here: Democrats, Republicans, current, past, everybody. We have a problem. We have a challenge. I know the Presiding Officer is new. You came here to solve problems, create solutions, not just play the politics and push it off for another day, but actually do some things. That is why people sent me here, and I know that is why they sent you here: to do the job the American people expect us to do-- I know Alaskans expect me to do.

There is no question in my mind why we are here today. It is because, again, the House majority, I will point out, cannot do their job. They are unable to do their job. They are not dealing with reality.

Do I want to add more debt to the Nation? No. No one does. As my colleague from Colorado earlier said--and I know the Presiding Officer--we have been working on ideas. One thing that is unique about the Senate is there is an effort here--it may not be as visible as the press would like to portray because they would like to see the battles, that is better press. There is a lot of bipartisan discussion going on. The Gang of 6, you can argue if that is good or bad, but the point is three Republicans, three Democrats sat down for months. In the Budget Committee, we sat down for months. We came up with proposals. We are talking to Republicans. Republicans are talking to Democrats. We are looking for solutions. We are trying to weed through this. The Senate is trying to do this. We are trying to solve this problem and create a solution that moves us forward. But there are several in the House majority over there who believe to drive off a cliff is good policy. I don't know, I don't think that is good policy. I would rather drive on the road, going somewhere. That is what we are trying to do over the next few days.

As I think of the differences--and people say: Well, why don't you just take that deal or this deal? Here is the difference. They are fundamental. They are not complicated. The deal the leader, Speaker Boehner, has in the House is about $900 billion in reductions. It is short term. It has a joint committee to look to the long term. What is the Reid proposal? The Reid proposal, as it is now scored by CBO--the Congressional Budget Office, for those who are watching and wondering what all these things mean--is $2.2-plus trillion in reductions, almost 2\1/2\ times more than the House version, and it is long term. Here is why that is important. I am not voting for anything short term. Let me make that very clear to the Presiding Officer and others who might be watching. If we want to disrupt and continue to disrupt this economy, keep doing these shenanigans and keep doing these

2-, 3-, 4-month deals, that is disastrous to this economy.

I have heard and talked to business leader after business leader, from associations, to individuals, to people back in my home State, and they say over and over: Don't do short term. Whatever you decide, give us certainty--certainty.

The unique thing about the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House: Only we would describe long term as 16, 18 months because that is all we can do around here. But short term, as one can imagine, is 3, 4 months. That would be more disruptive to this economy than anything we can imagine because all we do as we shift it--and I can describe this because I understand this business. I have been in it. My wife is in it. Here is what happens. We will have this same debate in November, probably. Here is what happens in November. This is the biggest time for people who are buying. For retailers, this is the most important time--actually, back to school a little bit, but November through December is when people make their expenditures and are buying things, consuming, and spending money in our economy. But people always like to blame Democrats: It is all about government. I come from the private sector. As I said earlier, that is where I made my living. It is an important part of our economy.

So here we are going to debate, create more uncertainty at the most important time, when consumers are going to try to judge what to do. What do they do? Do they spend a little bit extra for a gift for their friend? Do they go on that trip they were planning? Do they make that extra expenditure? Yet we will have the same debate. So long term is important--again, 16, 18 months, but that is better than the short-term plan.

No businessperson has come to me--and I challenge any businessperson: Pick up the phone. Call me. Let me know. Tell me you want a short term, and I will be happy to come down here to the floor and say that. I will mention your company name. I will tell people: This company is interested in short term. I would be happy to do that. I am not going to get those calls because they know that is not the way to run a business, that is not the way to run a household, and that sure as heck should not be the way we run our government.

So there is a clear difference. For all of those people who--I get a lot of pro and con on this issue, calling my office, sending me e- mails--for all of those people who say: Hey, just vote for the Boehner thing, I will tell them why I will not. I want people to understand clearly my position. It is not about, he is a Republican, I am a Democrat. That is irrelevant. It is short term. It is fewer spending reductions. It keeps us in turmoil. It doesn't move us forward. It is all about shenanigans and game-playing and politics. That is what he is presenting.

Now, maybe the Reid proposal isn't perfect. I know there are Republicans who have some ideas here in the Senate who want to modify it. Great. But it is long term, it has more significant reductions, and it moves us down a path in the right direction. It is not perfect, but I can tell my colleagues that the idea they have over there will not work for this economy.

I have probably spoken too long, but those kids from Juneau and Healy and Anchorage and Kodiak had a great question. When kids are asking that question and they say to me--and I give them the same exact presentation. I say: Here are the differences. I give them the papers and say: Here, you look at it. And they say to me: Why aren't we doing a long term, because these kids are now at an age where they are thinking about their future. They are not thinking about the next weekend; they are thinking about their future. They have a position we could learn a lot from around this place, I will tell my colleagues they made it very clear to me: Whatever you do, make it long term, because they are thinking about their future and where they want to be. It is an incredible commentary when we have kids who have more wherewithal in the sense of their knowledge of what should be done in the body we sit in today. It should wake us up.

The last thing I will note is this. I think about what my colleague from Colorado said about the value of our position in this world when it comes to ensuring that people understand America will stand behind everything we do--the debt we do, the positions we take. As a matter of fact, it was so important, it was written into the Constitution that we should never question the ability to pay our bills.

For those on the other side who like to spout off, and they pull out of their pocket the little portable Constitution--all of us get those; we all have those--and they cite the Constitution, sometimes they forget sections of it. I hope we don't forget this section. We should never be questioned in regard to our debt. We pay our bills. We stand behind what we do. That is what makes our country different from any country in this world.

So I challenge them to get their job done, maybe on the FAA bill, maybe on this issue involving the debt, but the House needs to get their act together--the majority. Let me make that clear. The majority over there needs to get their job done, quit killing things over there, from jobs to legislation, and focus on the work people sent them here-- especially the group of 2010--but who sent me here and sent the Presiding Officer here--we were sent here to do a job.

It is outrageous to me that we cannot move forward when it is so simple in the sense of a plan that gets us on a path that is long term and has better spending reductions. Maybe it is too logical. Maybe that is the problem around here: If it is too simple, too logical, it doesn't work. It has to be complicated with a lot of gamesmanship is the only way it works. I want to prove that wrong.

I thank the Chair for allowing me the time to say a few words. Hopefully, the people who are watching us and listening will hear the real debate and cut through all the moment-in-time politicizing. Maybe, hopefully, they will hear those five kids whom I heard and will hear their concerns and what their position is.

So, again, I thank the Chair for the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about progress in the nation of Croatia, which I was honored to visit recently.

At the invitation of the Croatian Minister of Defense, I participated in what is known as the ``Croatian Summit,'' a gathering of leaders from Eastern Europe.

The theme of this year's summit was: ``A New Decade for Southeast Europe: Finalizing the Transition.''

Less than 15 years after a terrible ethnic war that devastated Croatia, the nation is making enormous progress. It is rapidly making a transition to a market-based economy and its government leaders are committed to a strong and lasting partnership with the United States.

They are a great partner of ours in Afghanistan and in other trouble spots across the globe.

That is personally important to me because 100 years ago this year, my grandfather emigrated from Croatia to this country. John Begic--then it was spelled B-E-G-I-C--then 17 years old, left his farm and eventually settled in northern Minnesota's Iron Range.

John Begic and his young bride, Anna Martinich had four children. Their youngest, Nicholas, made his way to America's new frontier of Alaska even before we were a state. He was my father.

Nick Begich was an educator and eventually was elected Alaska's lone Member of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1970. I am honored to follow in his footsteps as a Member of the Senate, where I am the only Member of Croatian decent.

My recent visit to Dubrovnik was my first to Croatia. I was honored to represent this body at the summit, along with officials from the State Department and U.S. Embassy.

I was impressed with the great progress underway there, as well as the excellent job being performed by our embassy personnel. There are enormous opportunities for partnership between the United States and Croatia, and I am anxious to pursue those.

I ask unanimous consent that my remarks at the Croatia Summit be printed in the Record to document my participation in the summit and the strong partnership between our nations.

Mr. President, I wish to say thank you for the opportunity to

put on the Record my experiences in Croatia this last weekend and, again, seeing the country after 15 years ago going through incredible devastation to where they are today.

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

Mr. President, I wish to speak about legislation I am introducing today that would repeal an ill-fitting and broad-reaching rule that limits not only timber harvest and mining but important renewable energy projects in Southeast Alaska.

In March of this year, a Federal District Court ruling set aside the 2003 Tongass Exemption and reinstated the application of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in the Tongass National Forest. This decision means that the Tongass National Forest is now managed by a cookie-cutter rule imposed upon all national forests rather than by the 2008 Tongass Land Management Plan developed by Forest Service personnel under a wide reaching multi-year collaboration with Alaskans.

This will have a severe impact and reverse efforts to revitalize local communities and increase economic diversification throughout the region. Over the past few months, I have spoken with Tongass Forest Supervisor Forest Cole and Department of Agriculture staff about what flexibility they have under the rule.

I appreciate that Secretary Vilsack and the plaintiffs in this most recent court case recognize the importance of hydropower development, mining and personal use wood policies to the economy of Southeast Alaska. However, what I have read of their settlement agreement doesn't offer any certainty that there won't be more challenges and delays. Our experience over the past decade suggests there will be.

With lots of demands on the Tongass Forest, the Forest Service needs greater flexibility to address these issues while crafting a reasonably sized timber sale program that keeps the few existing mills alive and allows for modest expansion into second growth markets. Unemployment in the rural portions of Southeast Alaska currently averages more than 15 percent. Energy costs in these non-hydropower communities are too high as well. Instead of adding options, the roadless rule takes them away. It is time once and for all to do away with the rule in Alaska.

I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murkowski, for joining me as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about legislation I am introducing today that would repeal an ill-fitting and broad-reaching rule that limits not only timber harvest and mining but important renewable energy projects in Southeast Alaska.

In March of this year, a Federal District Court ruling set aside the 2003 Tongass Exemption and reinstated the application of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in the Tongass National Forest. This decision means that the Tongass National Forest is now managed by a cookie-cutter rule imposed upon all national forests rather than by the 2008 Tongass Land Management Plan developed by Forest Service personnel under a wide reaching multi-year collaboration with Alaskans.

This will have a severe impact and reverse efforts to revitalize local communities and increase economic diversification throughout the region. Over the past few months, I have spoken with Tongass Forest Supervisor Forest Cole and Department of Agriculture staff about what flexibility they have under the rule.

I appreciate that Secretary Vilsack and the plaintiffs in this most recent court case recognize the importance of hydropower development, mining and personal use wood policies to the economy of Southeast Alaska. However, what I have read of their settlement agreement doesn't offer any certainty that there won't be more challenges and delays. Our experience over the past decade suggests there will be.

With lots of demands on the Tongass Forest, the Forest Service needs greater flexibility to address these issues while crafting a reasonably sized timber sale program that keeps the few existing mills alive and allows for modest expansion into second growth markets. Unemployment in the rural portions of Southeast Alaska currently averages more than 15 percent. Energy costs in these non-hydropower communities are too high as well. Instead of adding options, the roadless rule takes them away. It is time once and for all to do away with the rule in Alaska.

I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murkowski, for joining me as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, before I talk about the budget, I wish to commend the Senator from Georgia.

As someone who has been in the real estate business for many years, such as the Senator from Georgia, he is absolutely right. If homeowners are stuck with a 20-percent minimum, the odds are it will crush the housing market. I can tell you this personally because I am helping my mother do the paperwork now for her home. If she was required to put 20 percent down, she would not be buying that home today. We hope to close on the home in the next 45 days. We are fortunate she is able to do that, but 20 percent would take her right out of the market, unable to buy the home she wants to retire in.

So I say to the Senator from Georgia, I hope more people hear it in the administration, because if they don't hear that, as we know with the housing market, it is a critical component of our ability to pull ourselves out of the recession. I thank the Senator for making those comments and noting that.

I know Senator Conrad was down here earlier, the chair of the Budget Committee, to talk about the budget framework. I first wish to say thanks to Chairman Conrad. Here is someone who has been on the Budget Committee for 25 years, since 1986, and has been chairman for many of those years, an unbelievable capacity and understanding of the budget and what needs to be done. He understands it. He clearly recognizes we have to have a balanced approach.

For months, yourself, Mr. President, and myself, sitting on the Budget Committee, along with the chairman on the Democratic side, have been working to try to figure out how do we craft a balanced approach. How do we ensure that at the end of the day, we recognize we have to have a budget that continues to help grow our economy, creates fairness in the system, and makes sure we take the responsibility of creating a more accountable and financially responsible budget, not only for this year but for the years out, and dealing with a comprehensive approach to dealing with the deficit?

This is not an easy task, to say the least. I can say, standing here, and I know, Mr. President, as a member of the Budget Committee also, none of those meetings were easy in the discussion, if I could say that--robust debates, robust controversy in some of the issues we talked about but also a lot of ideas. But what is in front of us?

No one can match the chairman's approach of how to address an issue such as this as he lays out slide after slide the impacts, from the macro to the micro, of this budget and what it will mean. But it is clear the budget proposal he has laid out, the framework, as he calls it, by the Democratic majority of the Budget Committee is $4 trillion in cuts for deficit reduction and is achieved in a very fair and balanced way, without putting the burden on the backs of seniors, working families, and small business. This is a balanced approach. The deficit-cutting mechanisms are drawn half from savings and half from revenues. Revenues mean closing loopholes.

His photo there, which as we sit here and present to the President our positions is hard for people in the balconies to see, but it is of an amazing five-story building. It is not a very attractive building, just a small five-story building in a tax haven that grants thousands and thousands of businesses a shelter from their fair share of paying their taxes.

The idea of this revenue component of the proposal we put forth is closing loopholes, closing down tax avoidance schemes that rely on abusive tax shelters, and, yes, cutting tax subsidies, ending the practice of giving the wealthiest of the wealthy tax subsidies they simply do not need. It is about promoting fairness.

As we dealt with this budget, a $4 trillion reduction--a number that the bipartisan commission hit as their target, one we hear out there now in the press a lot but one we felt was a reasonable approach. It is more than the House budget that was proposed. The House budget included savings only on the spending side and actually worsened the outlook on the revenue side

that we simply do not believe is good enough.

The budget is about fairness, about ensuring that we have a system that is balanced but also investing in the right areas so we have long- term and continued growth. We do not give more tax breaks to corporations and the rich and then put the burden on the backs of seniors, poor kids, working families, disabled. It is unacceptable to put the burden on our most vulnerable population. The budget is truly a moral document. It defines where we are going to go, what we are going to do, and how we are going to look in the next 10 years or 20 years as a country.

When I was mayor of Anchorage in 2003, when I got elected, I had a budget around $215 million, with about a $33 million hole in it--pretty significant in the sense of proportions. We had to deal with spending and reducing it. We had to create a fairness in the revenue, but we also had to invest. But we also knew the document and the work we were doing in the budget would define where our community went, not just in the year we were doing it but in the next several years down the road.

I was very pleased. When I got elected to the Senate, it was, I think, Business Week and others that rated the city that I was mayor of, Anchorage, as probably the most likely city in the country to recover from the recession the fastest. As a matter of fact, Forbes has listed it, not only last year but this year, I think, No. 3 this year as the city of job growth because there was a foundation laid. We had to make some tough decisions, and I remember as mayor they were no fun. I remember the role of the Presiding Officer in the community he represented. There are tough decisions we have to make, but you have to make them.

I can still remember one headline that as we were trying to figure out what do with our library system that wasn't run as well as it could be, I still remember this headline to this day: ``Begich Lays Off 21 Librarians,'' which is not a very good headline, to say the least.

But what did we do? We reexamined it, reinvested, increased our partnerships with the private sector today, and the library system is more robust than ever before, with new branch libraries serving more kids than ever before, better facilities, new equipment, new technology. It is more robust than it has been in decades because we had to make some tough decisions for the long term.

That is where we are today, especially after the disappointing news we had this last week with regard to the job market, when the economists thought we were going to have 120,000 new jobs and we ended up with just 18,000, unemployment rising to 9.2 percent.

As I said, this plan protects critical investment that will help us build the future of our economy here. It invests, as mentioned by the chairman of the Budget Committee, Chairman Conrad, in education, energy--which is, of course, for my State critical--and infrastructure, core infrastructure.

I use my experience as a mayor. In my short term as mayor of Anchorage, we built more roads than all the mayors combined in the previous 20 years. We built more vertical construction--fire stations, convention center, museums, and other facilities that helped water, sewer, power, new generation of gas turbines--all that because when you build that infrastructure, the private sector will attach to it, will be attracted to it and will build off of that.

This budget that is being presented by the majority on the Budget Committee keeps our investments in education, energy, infrastructure, which in turn will ensure that we continue to move back into the realm of being more competitive on the worldwide market.

We have all heard the budget proposal lays out some ideas on tax reform--not just a little bit here and a little bit there, but fairly significant. When we talk about our corporate rate in this budget proposal by the majority in the Budget Committee, it brings it down to about 29 percent. It is not where I would like it, but it is better than where it is today. It gets us more competitive on the world market.

A group of us also have introduced legislation in advance of this budget proposal, the Wyden-Coats-Begich Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act. The legislation provides real tax reform for our very outdated system. It plays off of exactly what the majority laid out, a budget proposal that talks about tax reform to create certainty for our business community for long-term investments, and we take it one more step. Not only do we look at the corporate component, we look at the individuals.

Can you imagine, as an individual right now we deal with six different rate structures. If we can reduce it to three, which our bill does, and you could do your tax return on one page--can you imagine the amount of time, effort, and money individuals will save? We take the budget proposal that the committee I sit on and the Presiding Officer sits on one step further. Not only do we focus on stability and certainty for the business community, which is critical for long-term investments they need to make to ensure all those trillions they have literally locked up in their cash accounts because they are not sure where we are headed as a country, we create the certainty, but we also ensure the individual has a compressed rate, a more fair system, and simplified, which we think is important.

Tax reform is an integral part of the conversation on deficit reduction. I am pleased Senator Conrad's proposal also provides some of the same tax reform principles I mentioned. As I mentioned, it not only deals with the rate structure but, as he detailed, very aggressively closing shelters and loopholes, and not just for one industry over another industry, which has been some of the debate, it is for fairness of all. We look at it all because we want everyone to be treated fairly.

Let me talk about a couple of more pieces in the majority's budget from the Budget Committee. Chairman Conrad went through it in great detail but I want to emphasize this point. The AMT, the middle-class tax cuts--what does this mean? What does this mean for the average person here?

Right now, 4.3 million taxpayers are affected by the AMT, which is a small tax provision that many years ago was set in place to get the richest of the richest. But it was never indexed, never inflation adjusted, so it has grown. There are 4.3 million taxpayers we have affected today. If we do not fix this tax problem, it will increase to 31 million people who will have additional taxes to pay.

What are we doing? We are putting on the AMT patch to fix this problem so 30-plus million people will not have this additional tax burden. We think it is right. We think it is the right approach. It goes to the people who need it the most.

In addition, this framework that was laid out today, for singles earning $500,000 and couples earning $1 million or more, they will not receive the same tax relief as everyone below them will receive. The tax relief will be focused on families who earn $1 million or less. Why is that important? Because not only are they families, but almost 98 percent of all small business earn $1 million or less pretax. So we protect the backbone of my State. I can tell you as a small businessperson, the Presiding Officer knows that as someone who worked in a small business and it grew to a larger business, it is the backbone. It is what makes the difference in hiring people. Every day when people see their revenue stream start to increase, small businesses start hiring people. They need those employees.

But this proposal is not only for the individual, and then also the larger corporation bringing in that corporate rate, but it protects almost all the small businesses in this country--and, of course, being very biased--and in my State.

What does that mean? That means when you calculate it all in real dollars, and you heard the numbers, when you think about the tax reductions, the tax savings for middle-class Americans and small business, it is well over $1 trillion between the AMT and preserving the tax relief for families earning under $1 million. It is significant. That is money that small businesses will reinvest into their businesses, employing other small businesses to do the work. It is families who will have more disposable income to put into the economy which means more purchases from businesses which means more hiring and this has a constant ripple effect.

When you talk to business owners, and I have--I spent a lot of time with them as a small businessperson and a Senator now, meeting with business folks on a regular basis--over and over again they tell me put the money in the hands of the consumer. Then the consumers will spend that money and improve the economy because, as they spend money, we will hire more employees and buy more product. It goes on and on.

There is a difference between what we are trying to do in the sense of the value, who receives the benefit of a comprehensive budget proposal, a budget proposal that the majority in the Budget Committee has worked on for the last 2 or 3 months, at least, and before that trying to figure out the right approach. It is a balanced approach. It focuses, as I said, on dealing with budget reductions, accountability, ensuring that where there is waste we go after it aggressively. Where people are taking advantage of the system at the cost of the everyday person, we go after that. But we don't forget that we have to invest in the core issues of education, energy, and infrastructure, so we continue to grow this economy.

We must have a balanced approach in this process. I know on the other side they will argue over and over, first let's do spending and then we will deal with other things. You have to do it all together. I am telling you this as a person who ran a city for almost six years, ran businesses for many years: you cannot do it on one piece of the equation. It is a three-pronged attack. Some of the folks I know around here after years of service have gotten a little amnesia as to how it will occur. We can blame individuals, blame certain Presidents, certain majorities, but we are where we are and we have to deal with this.

It is not going to be fun. It will be uncomfortable. It will make us have to dig deep into what is right for the long-term health of this country and what we need to do to ensure America becomes what it used to be--a stronger country economically than it is today where we are in the lead when comes to innovation and we are in the lead when it comes to developing new technologies to lead this world in its economic growth.

We cannot do it in this process of I am only going to do one thing and one thing only. That does not work. It has to be a broad, sweeping approach.

We are not going to forget in this process that we are not going to throw people overboard who have helped build this country. When you think of our seniors, the generation that built our country to where it is, ensuring that people such as myself, the Presiding Officer, and others have an incredible opportunity, thinking about where they need to be, this budget plan keeps Social Security off the table.

We recognize there are issues and we have to deal with it in its sustainability and we recognize that, but it is not a driver. It has not contributed 1 penny to this deficit. We need to treat Social Security in a way that ensures sustainability in the long term and there are simple solutions to that that I know we can get to.

We also ensure that Medicare is taken care of, that benefits are not reduced. Also, as the chairman said so eloquently earlier, we have to ensure that our veterans are protected, those who serve now in Iraq and Afghanistan and all around the world, and served before. We owe a great deal to veterans. In some cases before I got here I know there was a lot of debate in the Veterans' Committee on which I sit. We have been working to be very sure they get the benefits they deserve. We need to make sure we fund them. When we send them to war and they become veterans after their service, we have an obligation, an obligation that should not be sliced and diced because we want to make political statements on the budget cutting process. They need to be protected.

As I said, this budget does good things. It is a fair approach. It may not be perfect in all senses. I can tell you there are things I don't like in it that are going to impact groups that are concerned about how we approach this, but we are all in this together. We need to make the approach the right way. But those who are so hardened now who say it is only going to be about spending cuts--which, let me make it very clear, I think the Budget Committee, the majority on the Budget Committee, is not afraid of dealing with the budget cuts. We have done that--$2 trillion of budget cuts. We have to get used to it when we are here in the Senate, not Bs or Ms, they are Ts, $2 trillion of budget cuts. We also balance it getting rid of loopholes and tax shelters in a fair and balanced way so everyone pays their fair share, but we also make sure we invest in the future.

If we are shortsighted around this place, we will pay for it next year and the year after that and the year after that. This is truly I think the right approach that goes after ensuring the middle class are not the people carrying the burden as they have been doing for the last several years--especially in the last 2 years, clearly--and that everyone participates. But we also make sure investment is done the right way.

The chairman laid out in great detail all that is in the framework. We think it is an important piece to lay down, that Democrats have been working on. We have been working every hour, every day. Even when we are back in our home States, trying to talk to constituents, we are talking about the budget. The Presiding Officer tells me stories. Every night he heads home and he meets with constituents to try to find out what the right approach is here. We bring all that information right here in this body. We did it in the majority in the Budget Committee. I know I put up a Web site request asking Alaskans what it is they want to cut. What do they want to save or have as revenues? Like good Alaskans, they were not bashful. They were very adamant about what they wanted and what they did not want and where we should cut and where we should not cut. I have taken all that in, and I have used that as part of my debate and discussion with the majority of the Budget Committee to figure out what the right approach is. I think this is the right approach. I think some might call it a big deal. In the Senate, this is the big deal. We are in the big place. This is where big deals happen. This is where it all has to happen. It is where we drive the economy in the sense of our certainty and our policies. If we cannot have a strong deficit reduction budget, we are not going to create the certainty the business community needs to invest, which will, in turn, employ more people and create a better economy for us here and obviously will have an impact around the world.

I want to say thank you for an opportunity to say a few words, again, commending the chairman, who was here earlier, for all of his work. It is a tough call. I will end on this comment, the story I told you about the librarians and the headline I had to have. That was in my first 6 months in office when I was mayor. Mr. President, 2\1/2\ years later, I won reelection with one of the largest margins in the city's history. So I would say this to anybody who is trying to figure out if they are going to win their primary, win their general election: Put that all aside. That is what I did when I was mayor. I had to make some tough calls. Did I know if I would win reelection? No. I didn't know. I knew I did the right thing because it was the city I lived in. It was the State I grew up in. It was important for us to make the right decision, which at the end of the day is usually the right political decision. That is what this body has to do. It is not fun because people face primaries. They face general elections. Some will win, some will lose. But if we are true public servants, truly it doesn't matter if we are sitting in this room or outside there; we are always public servants. We have to do what is right in this critical time for this country and in the global perspective. If we don't do the right deficit plan, it will ripple through this country and it will ripple through this world in the wrong direction.

Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you for the chance to say a few words, but also I implore my colleagues on the other side to think about today's opportunities for the generations in the future and not about today's elections. And I mean on both sides of the aisle. It is about the moment of what people do for this country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am on the floor this afternoon to talk about the issue not only of the day, the week, the month, the year, it is the issue about what to do about the deficit. Everyone around here knows that if we fail to raise the debt ceiling by the August 2 deadline, the United States will default on its loan payments. Defaulting could have catastrophic consequences on our economy as we attempt to recover from the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Failing to raise the debt limit could send our economy into a tailspin with unthinkable results for the American people. With the stakes so high, we must ask ourselves: How did we get into this position? Or as my constituents back home in Alaska say: How did you get into this mess? Over the last decade, both sides of the aisle have played a role in this irresponsible spending that resulted in our current fiscal crisis. At the beginning of the last decade, we had a budget surplus--let me say that again--a budget surplus of $200 billion, with a projected surplus of $5 trillion for the next 10 years. By the time I took office in 2009, not only had our budget surplus disappeared, we faced a budget deficit of over $1 trillion.

The creditworthiness of the United States is in jeopardy. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose raising the debt ceiling, citing the need to rein in reckless spending. While I support broad deficit reduction measures, I strongly disagree with those who fail to recognize consequences of failing to raise the debt limit and defaulting on our financial obligations. Everyone around here knows what will happen if we do not. For the first time ever the creditworthiness of the United States would be put in jeopardy. I want to step back for a second and remind everyone Congress has enacted measures on the Federal debt limit 74 times. So they obviously understand what will happen if the American government defaults on its payments. The ceiling has been increased by both Democratic and Republican administrations and Congress. George W. Bush's first term in May of 2003 would increase the limit by $984 billion. In fact, Congress raised the debt ceiling seven times during his administration. The Senate Republicans provided the votes to raise the debt ceiling in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006. To keep a good credit rating is something the American people understand, and they are doing their very best during these hard times. I hear this all the time when we are back home.

While the American people understand that defaulting on our loans would only make matters worse, some Members of Congress insist on playing politics even during this economically uncertain time. If the U.S. Government defaults on its financial obligations, it would be the first time in history our credit would be downgraded. Let me repeat-- never before have we let our creditworthiness be called into question. The consequences are large and somewhat unknown.

Let me take a little bit from what the Senator from New York talked about and expand on that, and that is: How does it affect the individual, the person working hard every day, paying their mortgage, driving to work, pumping gas in their car, going on a vacation, doing everyday things that Americans do in my State of Alaska, especially now they are out fishing, enjoying the summer. The kids are out of school, and the State fair is getting geared up in another month. What happens? Well, first off, if we default on our loans that are due, our obligations, some immediate things will probably happen.

First off, individuals who have credit cards will have their rates go up, because if you read the fine print of those great credit card bills we get every month, which are very small and very detailed, they talk about how the rate is structured. The rate is structured around what happens in the market. Obviously a lot of people today may have a good rate, 9 percent, 10 percent, but average is around 15 percent, 18 percent. That interest rate will go up. Home mortgage rates--if you have an adjustable rate mortgage, it will be adjusted up. If you are a small business person--as I have been, and am still today, my wife-- there are many businesses that borrow on a 1-year, 2-year, 3-year loan, adjustable rate, maybe monthly, maybe it is an inventory loan because it is a seasonable business--all those rates will go up, assuming you can get a loan. When you drive your car and pump that gas and fill up your tank and you think prices are high now, oil commodities are traded in U.S. dollars. So the net effect is going to be that dollar is going to have less value, which means the price of the fuel will go up and what you pump into your car will increase.

Mr. President, 75 percent of world markets, transactions across this world are done in U.S. dollars. If you impact the creditworthiness of the country, the dollar has less credit behind it, which, of course, costs money, which means things we import such as fuel to operate our cars, energy to heat this building, to turn on these lights, go up. It has a real impact to individuals. It is not some global discussion here in the halls of Congress. It is not about just debt limit and GDP and all these other phrases that people kind of wonder what it means to them in their individual life, but it has a direct impact in their lives. What happens to their retirement funds? Their funds are invested in maybe U.S. Government securities. Well, they are going to see a change, a dramatic change. The American people, Alaskans, are already struggling. To add this additional burden because we are unable to sit down and work together and solve this problem in a cohesive, comprehensive way is irresponsible.

To my friends across the aisle, let me remind you of what President Reagan said in 1983 in a letter to then-Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker. He said it better than I think any of us could say, and this is directly from his letter:

The full consequences of default--or even the serious

prospect of default--by the United States are impossible to

predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full

faith and credit of the United States would have substantial

effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of

the dollar in exchange markets.

The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risk,

the costs, the disruptions and incalculable damage lead me to

but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation

before Congress adjourns.

It is amazing I can take a quote such as this from history and transplant it today and it is the same situation.

At the same time as we deal with this, I feel strongly we must pass a deficit reduction measure. I have supported the deficit commission, the debt commission, and their efforts. I didn't agree with it all, but I agreed the $4 trillion mark should be it. We should try to do our best. In order to solve this problem, this challenge--and we all have our sides where we are kind of hunkered down. Every time I go back home-- and I was back home this last weekend for my short 48 hours. I spend more time on the plane than staying at home at times. But when I get home, people say very simply to me, it is a combination. We are going to have to reduce the spending. I don't object to that. We are going to have to create a more fair tax system, which I don't object to. Along with Senator Wyden and Senator Coats, I have introduced tax legislation that does that, simplifies individual rates, focuses on a growth agenda with our tax policy. It gets rid of the loopholes, tax havens that people take advantage of who pay no taxes but enjoy the great bounties of our country.

We also have to invest. We have to invest in a growth agenda. That means investing in infrastructure, in education. Because as you reduce your budget, which I don't disagree with, and as we create a more fair, balanced tax system, we have to do one of the most principled things and that is to continue to help grow this economy and we have to invest in our infrastructure, and invest in a variety of things that grow our economy.

This is an opportunity for us to put our country on sound financial footing by passing a broad deficit reduction measure that includes cost savings and increased revenues. When it comes to protecting America's economic security and improving fiscal responsibility, the time to act is now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to memorialize Dr. Walter A. Soboleff, Sr., who died at his home on May 22, 2011. During a life which spanned more than 102 years, Dr. Soboleff was revered as one of Alaska's greatest teachers. A Presbyterian minister, Tlingit scholar and elder, his quiet wisdom, wry humor, and loving leadership bridged cultures to change attitudes and lives.

Born November 14, 1908, in Killisnoo, AK, to a Tlingit mother and the son of a Russian Orthodox priest, Walter was a member of the Yeil moiety, Raven; L'eeneidi clan, Dog Salmon; and Aanx'aakhittaan House. His Tlingit names included T'aaw Chan and Kaajaakwti.

From fifth grade through high school, Dr. Soboleff emerged as an academic talent at Sheldon Jackson, a Presbyterian mission school in Sitka, AK. Though baptized by his Russian Orthodox grandfather, his experience at Sheldon Jackson led him to the Presbyterian ministry. Few Alaska Natives had access to college in the 1930s, but Dr. Soboleff was hungry to learn. He attended a term at Oregon State University, fished commercially, and worked the canneries before receiving a full scholarship to the theological seminary at the University of Dubuque, Iowa. He completed his graduate degree there in 1940.

With many offers to fill pulpits around the country, Dr. Soboleff chose to return to Alaska. As the first ordained Alaska Native, he led Juneau's Memorial Presbyterian Church, a struggling mission to the Tlingits. For many at that time, an integrated church was inconceivable, but Dr. Soboleff's inspired fusion of Tlingit and Christian spirituality attracted a diverse and growing congregation. His teachings were so resonant that part of his service was broadcast on the radio, and he even had a weekly news program which was broadcast in the Tlingit language.

Although Memorial Church closed in 1962, Dr. Soboleff maintained his spirit, relocating his ministry to the mission boats Anna Jackman and Princeton Hall. On them, he traveled southeast Alaska to serve remote villages, logging camps, and lighthouse stations.

A man who walked his talk, Dr. Soboleff was an activist of quiet strength who dedicated himself to humanitarian service and the preservation of his culture. He exemplified caring, understanding, and mutual respect. When denied housing because he and his wife Genevieve were Native, and when the Presbyterians closed his church without explanation, he chose the high road and subsequently opened doors. He responded to conflict with benevolence and racial bias with equanimity, and his unexpected kindness softened difficult situations to invite open relationships and understanding.

A worker rather than a joiner, Dr. Soboleff belonged to many diverse organizations, all dedicated to human understanding and, for him, the preservation of his culture.

As a member of the Alaska Native Brotherhood, he served in all offices including seven terms as grand president. Through ANB he worked to empower Alaska Natives and develop collaborations with other organizations to shape antidiscrimination and land claims legislation. After passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971, Dr. Soboleff served as a director of the Sealaska Corporation, president of Kootznoowoo, Inc., and chair of the Sealaska Heritage Institute's Board of Trustees.

As a member of the Lions Club, he helped to found the Gold Medal Basketball Tournament, an event which continues to unite southeast Alaska communities in sport.

As a member of the Alaska National Guard, he served 20 years as chaplain and retired as a lieutenant colonel.

In recognition of his many outstanding achievements, the University of Dubuque awarded Dr. Soboleff an honorary doctorate in divinity in 1952; the University of Alaska would follow suit with an honorary doctorate of humanities in 1968.

Widely recognized as one who understood the value of education, Dr. Soboleff was appointed by Governor Walter J. Hickel to the State board of education. The first Alaska Native to serve, he became chair in 1967. In 1970, he became the first director of Native Studies at UAF. There, he taught Tlingit history, language, and literature. Fluent both in Tlingit and English, he translated stories to revive the Tlingit language and restore his people's pride in themselves and their heritage. Cross-cultural understanding and human respect were so important to Dr. Soboleff, that he stayed active until the end of his long life, addressing a rally against domestic violence just weeks before his death. His presence and his words, as always, made a difference.

To Dr. Soboleff's four children, Janet, Sasha, Walter, and Ross, and to his extended family, we send deep condolences along with joy for the gift of his longevity. While Alaska has lost one of the greatest of her leaders, the teachings of Walter A. Soboleff have shaped how we view ourselves and how we treat one another. Those touched by his spirit have been changed for the better, and his legacy lives on.

Mr. President, today I wish to memorialize a great Alaskan, Mr. Ben Grussendorf. A public servant, master teacher, community activist, legislator, outdoorsman, and all-around gentleman, Ben Grussendorf died June 17, 2011. He is survived by his wife of 48 years, Karen, son Tim, daughter Karla, and four grandchildren.

Born February 23, 1942, in Grand Rapids, MN, Ben attended the University of Minnesota, where he earned a B.A. in political science and an M.A. in political science education.

In 1967, eager to fish, hunt, and hike, Ben and Karen moved to Sitka, AK, to teach. Ben taught government and social sciences at Sitka High School and Sitka Community College, but his attraction to politics and government soon drew him to help shape a strong future for his adopted community. Ben was elected to the Charter Commission, and became its chair, leading the effort to write unification documents which continue to govern the city and borough of Sitka. He was subsequently elected for two terms to serve as mayor of this unified government. In 1980, Sitka voters sent him to the State House of Representatives where he served 10 terms, a full 20 years.

In the legislature, Ben earned a reputation as a diplomat. He was a man who focused on problems and solutions rather than party and politics. The respect he showed by listening to differing viewpoints opened the door for people of all backgrounds and political persuasions to create a climate of compromise. Ben knew true leadership was born, not in brazen ideas or self-promotion, but in the ability to win allies and build coalitions. Because of his ability to nurture friendships on both sides of the aisle, he was elected as Speaker of the House for an unprecedented three terms.

As speaker, Ben brokered compromises which put the public first. Fair to everyone, his calm composure and down-home sense of humor defused tension and brought people together; his vision and diplomacy kept them focused on the greater good.

Throughout his tenure in the House, Ben was renowned for his patience, discretion, and expertise. He knew the nooks and crannies both of the legislative process and the issues. Colleagues relied on him for inside knowledge of Alaskan politics to affect change and make a difference. They remember him as an important teacher and mentor, one who led by example.

When Ben announced his retirement from the Legislature in 2000, he cited his original Alaska draw--time to hunt, fish, and walk his dogs. Because of his passion for wildlife and capitalizing on his legislative expertise, Governor Tony Knowles convinced him to accept appointment to the Alaska Board of Game in 2001. There, he put his listening and diplomatic skills to further use, tackling important challenges such as caribou herd management and subsistence policy. His effectiveness and diplomacy earned him successive reappointments by Governors Murkowski, Palin, and Parnell.

Whether hunting, fishing, hiking, gardening, or just observing, Ben was an outdoorsman at heart. He was also a writer who kept a journal, wrote short stories and drafted manuscripts about subjects he well understood--politics and nature.

Ben Grussendorf's devotion to Sitka and to Alaska, whether as a teacher, a legislator, a member of the Board of Game, or a member of community service organizations, was inspirational. He made a difference with every commitment, and his years of working on issues important to people throughout the State will be part of his legacy as an Alaska statesman. He will be deeply missed by his family and his many friends.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to address issues of great concern to me and to all who care about public safety in Alaska Native villages.

Last year President Obama signed the Tribal Law and Order bill into law. That legislation passed because Congress recognized the great need to provide more support for the criminal justice system and communities in Indian Country. While this law has some important provisions that will benefit Alaska Native communities, I believe the remoteness and other unique conditions in many Native villages in my State compel us to do more. That is why I am introducing the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2011.

My bill will establish a demonstration project allowing Alaska Native tribes to set up tribal courts, establish tribal ordinances, and impose sanctions on those people who violate the ordinances. It would enhance current tribal

authority, while maintaining the State's primary role and responsibility in criminal matters. Additionally, those communities selected to be part of the demonstration project would be eligible for an Alaska Village Peace Officer grant, enabling a Peace Officer to serve participating communities in a holistic manner.

Due to the vastness of Alaska, too many of our small remote villages lack any law enforcement. Too often, minor cases involving alcohol and domestic abuse go unreported because the nearest State Trooper resides in a distant hub community, located a long and expensive airplane ride away. Frequently, harsh weather prevents the Troopers from flying into a community even when the most heinous acts have occurred. Approximately 71 villages have a sole, unarmed Village Patrol Safety Officer, VPSO, who must be on duty 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Compounding the challenges of a small number of local law enforcement, these few hard-working VPSOs are often underpaid. While communities try to provide some housing and heating assistance, in places where fuel oil can cost as much as $10 a gallon, it can be difficult to retain qualified VPSOs and also sustain the funding for these public servants.

As one who believes whole-heartedly in community involvement, I strongly believe tribes in Alaska should benefit from true self- determination and have a role in their law enforcement needs. This local control not only provides security for communities, but also encourages local acceptance of the established or existing judicial system as a whole. With the changes in place that my bill would require, residents of Alaska Native villages will see a culturally- relevant system replacing a crisis-management system that is set in place after a tragedy has occurred.

Unfortunately, Alaska Native communities have grown all too familiar with alarming suicide rates. In the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, over a two- month period during the summer of 2010, there were at least nine self- inflicted deaths in several of the region's villages. Nick Tucker, an elder in the village of Emmonak, wrote a letter to the State of Alaska's rural affairs advisor to try to bring attention to the issue. Part of Mr. Tucker's letter begged for the Governor to call the Legislature into session to address the issue. He also said it is no longer acceptable for village residents to wait for State Troopers because ``in the villages, they take forever.''

Part of the disturbing cycle of suicide in rural Alaska can be attributed to the presence of drugs and alcohol. Despite the knowledge that an individual can speak with an elder and learn who is bootlegging alcohol or selling drugs, predators do not fear law enforcement intervention because there is no consistent police or State Trooper presence.

Further, despite many Alaska Native communities' wealth of cultural heritage and tradition, many suffer from economic, cultural, and educational depression. Villages often experience high unemployment rates, above 20 percent, due to their remoteness and lack of economic opportunity. Most economic development in Alaska is centered in either the metropolitan areas, or in very remote areas where local residents are able to develop local resources. This economic depression, coupled with the 10,000-year practice of subsistence, means Alaska Natives' physical and spiritual survival remains highly dependent on the land. They subsist on game, berries, and fish. However, as hunting and fishing stocks dwindle, many of these Alaskans are feeling disconnected from their heritage and, at times, have turned to drugs and alcohol. Though educational attainment in the last 40 years has increased dramatically, the dropout rate in Alaska still hovers at 40 percent. Too many of our young men and women have lost hope and are losing a sense of community.

We must give our Nation's communities the tools necessary to protect themselves. Too often, we pour resources into urban areas, but decry lack of resources when we try to work toward innovative solutions for our most remote communities. We should no longer allow the answer from anyone to be ``we don't have the resources.'' Alaska Native villages are vibrant, strong communities and we should do everything in our power to answer their calls for help. I am hoping the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2011 will be just one piece of the puzzle.

I encourage my colleagues to join me on this legislation, and ask for the full Senate to consider and pass it--providing much-needed help and resources to some of our country's neediest places.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to address issues of great concern to me and to all who care about public safety in Alaska Native villages.

Last year President Obama signed the Tribal Law and Order bill into law. That legislation passed because Congress recognized the great need to provide more support for the criminal justice system and communities in Indian Country. While this law has some important provisions that will benefit Alaska Native communities, I believe the remoteness and other unique conditions in many Native villages in my State compel us to do more. That is why I am introducing the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2011.

My bill will establish a demonstration project allowing Alaska Native tribes to set up tribal courts, establish tribal ordinances, and impose sanctions on those people who violate the ordinances. It would enhance current tribal

authority, while maintaining the State's primary role and responsibility in criminal matters. Additionally, those communities selected to be part of the demonstration project would be eligible for an Alaska Village Peace Officer grant, enabling a Peace Officer to serve participating communities in a holistic manner.

Due to the vastness of Alaska, too many of our small remote villages lack any law enforcement. Too often, minor cases involving alcohol and domestic abuse go unreported because the nearest State Trooper resides in a distant hub community, located a long and expensive airplane ride away. Frequently, harsh weather prevents the Troopers from flying into a community even when the most heinous acts have occurred. Approximately 71 villages have a sole, unarmed Village Patrol Safety Officer, VPSO, who must be on duty 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Compounding the challenges of a small number of local law enforcement, these few hard-working VPSOs are often underpaid. While communities try to provide some housing and heating assistance, in places where fuel oil can cost as much as $10 a gallon, it can be difficult to retain qualified VPSOs and also sustain the funding for these public servants.

As one who believes whole-heartedly in community involvement, I strongly believe tribes in Alaska should benefit from true self- determination and have a role in their law enforcement needs. This local control not only provides security for communities, but also encourages local acceptance of the established or existing judicial system as a whole. With the changes in place that my bill would require, residents of Alaska Native villages will see a culturally- relevant system replacing a crisis-management system that is set in place after a tragedy has occurred.

Unfortunately, Alaska Native communities have grown all too familiar with alarming suicide rates. In the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, over a two- month period during the summer of 2010, there were at least nine self- inflicted deaths in several of the region's villages. Nick Tucker, an elder in the village of Emmonak, wrote a letter to the State of Alaska's rural affairs advisor to try to bring attention to the issue. Part of Mr. Tucker's letter begged for the Governor to call the Legislature into session to address the issue. He also said it is no longer acceptable for village residents to wait for State Troopers because ``in the villages, they take forever.''

Part of the disturbing cycle of suicide in rural Alaska can be attributed to the presence of drugs and alcohol. Despite the knowledge that an individual can speak with an elder and learn who is bootlegging alcohol or selling drugs, predators do not fear law enforcement intervention because there is no consistent police or State Trooper presence.

Further, despite many Alaska Native communities' wealth of cultural heritage and tradition, many suffer from economic, cultural, and educational depression. Villages often experience high unemployment rates, above 20 percent, due to their remoteness and lack of economic opportunity. Most economic development in Alaska is centered in either the metropolitan areas, or in very remote areas where local residents are able to develop local resources. This economic depression, coupled with the 10,000-year practice of subsistence, means Alaska Natives' physical and spiritual survival remains highly dependent on the land. They subsist on game, berries, and fish. However, as hunting and fishing stocks dwindle, many of these Alaskans are feeling disconnected from their heritage and, at times, have turned to drugs and alcohol. Though educational attainment in the last 40 years has increased dramatically, the dropout rate in Alaska still hovers at 40 percent. Too many of our young men and women have lost hope and are losing a sense of community.

We must give our Nation's communities the tools necessary to protect themselves. Too often, we pour resources into urban areas, but decry lack of resources when we try to work toward innovative solutions for our most remote communities. We should no longer allow the answer from anyone to be ``we don't have the resources.'' Alaska Native villages are vibrant, strong communities and we should do everything in our power to answer their calls for help. I am hoping the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2011 will be just one piece of the puzzle.

I encourage my colleagues to join me on this legislation, and ask for the full Senate to consider and pass it--providing much-needed help and resources to some of our country's neediest places.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ongoing budget negotiations.

As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I have jumped into this debate head-on. But we are all here together. That is why I have asked the Alaskans in my State and my communities all across the State to share their ideas with me on how to cut the budget. I have put forward a series of cuts and spending management programs from ideas from my colleagues and my members throughout the State but also ideas I have picked up in my budget hearings. We know we are all going to feel the pinch if we are serious about getting our budget and spending under control, but I have made it crystal clear that I absolutely will not balance the budget on the backs of seniors.

For me, the budget is a moral document. It reflects our values as a nation, and it demonstrates our commitment to supporting our elders and protecting our children. It is the future pathway of our great country. But the Republican House budget that has passed the House and is proposed today for us to vote on does not reflect these values. That is why Congressman Ryan received an earful from seniors when he went back home to Wisconsin after rolling out his plan--his scheme, in my view-- setting us back decades. That is why voters in New York yesterday rejected Republicans and their extreme plan to eliminate Medicare as we know it by electing a Democrat in a Republican district. I mention New York not because this was a win for Democrats or a loss for Republicans but because this was a win for our seniors and because the stakes are too high.

Americans all across the country are saying no to the current Republican plan that could fail to automatically enroll our seniors in Medicare and instead force them to buy health coverage from a private insurance company. And let me make it very clear on the private insurance company. Medicare today, to administer, costs about 1.5 percent. So all of the rest of the money for Medicare goes to services, to programs to ensure health care for our seniors. If insurance companies got hold of this, their costs to administer would be 20 to 30 percent--clearly fewer services for seniors.

In Alaska, over the next 10 years, under this Republican House plan that passed that is here in front of the Senate for us to vote on, it will move the cost for Medicare for my constituents in Alaska from $5,000--their cost--in 10 years to over $10,000. On top of that, it will force seniors to pay an average of $3,500 more for prescription drugs over the next 10 years--again, adding about $8,500 in additional health care costs to seniors. At the same time, this budget they want us to approve--which, of course, I am not willing to--will give millionaires another $1.2 trillion in additional reductions, at the same time sticking it to our seniors. It will truly end Medicare as we know it today.

In Alaska, our elders are revered. We respect their wisdom, and they guide our decisions. As a people, it is our duty to care for our elders as they grow older. The Republican plan, the Ryan budget, will cost, as I said, Alaska seniors dearly--thousands and thousands of dollars per year more than they are paying today, seniors who are on fixed incomes. In Alaska, we have one of the fastest growing senior populations in the Nation by percent.

So I continue to look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side and my colleagues on this side to figure out how we are going to move forward on this budget, but let's not do it on the backs of seniors by throwing them over the ship and never looking back. Seniors paid into it, seniors expect it, and we have an obligation to ensure they have the health care that ensures that they have a quality of life and live in dignity in their later years.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lautenberg.) The Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, today I wish to memorialize one of Alaska's greatest pioneers and statesmen, Mr. George W. Rogers. Born to immigrant parents in 1917, George Rogers died on October 3, 2010, in the Juneau home he designed. By his side were Jean, his wife of 68 years, their children, and several close friends.

Often described as a ``Renaissance man,'' George devoted his adult life to the spirit of the Territory and State of Alaska. As an economist, politician, educator, author, architect and artist, his contributions shaped the state and he will always be part of Alaska's story.

Armed with a B.S. in economics from University of California at Berkeley, George began his long and historic Alaskan career in 1945. With the hope of feeding U.S. troops with less expense, the Office of Price Administration sent him up to negotiate reduced prices for raw fish. The job ended with the close of WWII, but George stayed on to advise several territorial governors, among them Ernest Gruening, who later would become one of Alaska's first U.S. Senators. It was Governor Gruening who encouraged George to attend Harvard for an MPA and a Ph.D.

Dr. Rogers saw in economics the effects of dynamic forces of change, largely those related political, bureaucratic, and technical conditions. To George, Alaska was the perfect petri dish to study his ``real world'' of economics, and to that study he devoted his life.

At Governor Gruening's request, George created a revenue system for the Territory of Alaska. Later, during the fight for statehood, Territorial Governor B. Frank Heintzelman sent him as a consultant to the Alaska Constitutional Convention where he also served as the stand- in for the convention's secretary. He considered his greatest contribution to the convention his work on apportionment to ensure Alaska's rural people are fairly represented.

Of the convention he said:

We had been through a decade-long . . . worldwide

depression. We had World War II, and so Republicans and

Democrats both realized that we've got to put aside political

differences and look at the construction of our government.

And it was such a wonderful, uplifting experience to have the

two competing parties sit together and work this out. . . .

it's one of the high points of my whole life because it was a

period of great hope.

George applied this experience of hope and optimism to the rest of his professional and personal life. Believing in the possible, he influenced the fair development and treatment of Alaska's fisheries, timber, and oil for the benefit of all. He was involved in circumpolar research, the development of the Alaska Permanent Fund, and he helped to establish the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska. The Institute observes its 50th anniversary this year, dedicating the celebration to Dr. Rogers.

Much of George's personal time was shared with the city of Juneau. Elected to the assembly both before and after statehood, he served on numerous committees and as a member of the Juneau Rotary Club. His architectural skills provided the design for the Zach Gordon Youth Center, a vibrant recreation facility dedicated exclusively to Juneau's youth.

George was a great enthusiast and supporter of the arts. He designed sets for local productions, created the art for program covers and posters, and acted and sang on the stage. His abilities and openness of heart encouraged others to greater heights. He was a lifetime member of the Juneau Symphony Foundation, a member of the Juneau Lyric Opera, and the Juneau Arts and Humanities Council.

A loving and caring husband and father, George and his wife Jean were a unit. With the addition of six adopted children, George redesigned and expanded their two-room, 1948 miner's cabin until it became a five- bedroom, two-bath home. The house burned in 2000, but the irrepressible George began designs for the new one the following day.

As we bid farewell to his physical presence, George's many contributions live in perpetuity. Whether through his advisory work, his scholarly work, or the seven books he wrote--some of which have been adapted as educational textbooks--he made a lasting difference.

George's friends not only realize the depth of his impact on Alaskan life, they will also always remember the twinkle in his eye, his quick wit, his honesty, and his ability to best them at dominos.

George Rogers was a great man, a role model, an Alaskan, and he has left an enduring legacy.

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

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, absolutely, I am aware of the quantity and value of Alaska oil and gas today. I rise to discuss this issue, as well as a few others related to the issues of oil and gas.

I rise to discuss an issue foremost on the minds of my constituents and a concern to all Americans: the rising cost of energy. I wish to outline the proposals aimed at providing short-term relief for high prices at the pump and to ensure America's long-term energy security. These are the issues which have been discussed many times in this Chamber. The time for talk has passed. The time to act is now. High energy prices today already are pinching the pocketbooks of families and crippling our small businesses across my State and across this country.

When I was home over the recess, I visited the roaded areas of Alaska. These are communities connected by our highway road system, from Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks, where gas prices are well over $4 a gallon. As one can see on the poster next to me, they range from $4.15 to $4.45 a gallon. These prices might look good to some of my colleagues who saw gas prices over $5 a gallon in their States, but off the road system in Alaska prices are much higher. The fact is prices for gasoline and home heating oil never came down in rural Alaska. They have been well over $5 a gallon for years. Some places, such as Anaktuvuk Pass are nearly $10 a gallon.

I started a discussion with Alaskans on Facebook to just see how these high prices are affecting their budgets.

Some families are already facing tough choices to make their budgets balance. For families commuting into Anchorage from the Mat-Su Valley every day, they are forced to pay more than $100 a week to fuel up. That is

more than a pocketbook pinch, it is a punch.

Even worse, families know the price isn't coming down anytime soon. Even though speculation ranges all over the place, prices are expected to rise still another 30 to 40 cents by July.

Mr. President, families know the price of fuel is not coming down anytime soon. As I mentioned, it is continuing to rise. It is not just affecting families but businesses. They feel the sticker shock also at the pump. We are seeing businesses through rising food and delivery prices making up the difference. These families and businesses expect us to act now. No more excuses.

Energy is one place where we should be able to find bipartisan common ground. I have been calling for a comprehensive energy bill from day one in the Senate. Our lack of progress is frustrating. We were real close last spring, but now here we are again.

We need to provide Americans with reliable and affordable energy in three ways: short-term relief for consumers, new renewable energy sources for reliable electricity prices and keep strong investment in alternative transportation systems, and increase domestic oil and gas production so we are not dependent on unfriendly foreign sources.

First, the short term, which I call the pocketbook relief. We must help families keep their budgets balanced and help ensure that increasing consumer confidence doesn't falter. To do that, I have introduced the Family Account to Save on Transportation--or the FAST Act--to help families get through high gas prices over the next 2 years.

This bill will allow us to set up pretax transportation savings accounts--just like medical savings accounts--to help offset the pain of high gas prices on the family pocketbook. The bill would sunset in 2 years, so it would have no long-term burden on the Federal budget.

Second, we have to bring online alternative power sources to buffer power companies from price shocks of rising oil and gas prices. No matter where you are in Alaska, you don't have to go far to find alternative energy sources--wind, tidal, geothermal, and hydro. Even in these tough budget times, this is a good investment to strengthen our economy far into the future.

The same is true for alternative transportation systems and fuels. We must fully support efforts to develop electric, hybrid, and highly efficient vehicles. At the same time we must recognize most working families cannot afford to purchase a new vehicle. So we need to find other ways to reduce their transportation costs, such as greater investment in city-to-city commuter services.

The recent investment in high-speed rail is positive but is not reaching most of the country, and will not. Even in Alaska we have the potential for commuter rail. It is critical to move commuters from city to city and cut the $100-a-week gas prices folks from Mat-Su pay as they drive into Anchorage for employment.

Solving our energy security challenge cannot just focus on reducing consumption. Yes, it is important. But we must cut the use of fossil fuels in all sectors--as identified through consumption, especially transportation--but we also need to increase our domestic production.

Every new oil and gas development buys our country more energy and national security while also creating American jobs. Unfortunately, we are going in the wrong direction. Thirty years ago, 28 percent of our oil was imported; today it is 60 percent.

While our largest share of oil imports comes from Canada, too much is coming from unstable countries or those openly hostile to the United States. Not only will we become increasingly dependent on these countries for our oil, we are exporting over $1 billion a day. Let me repeat that: We export $1 billion a day.

In my home State of Alaska we have vast potential to increase America's energy security. The fact is, developing Alaska's oil and gas resources buys our country decades of energy security by offsetting foreign imports from unfriendly countries.

Consider a few examples which I have reflected on the board next to me.

Developing offshore resources in the Chukchi and the Beaufort Sea will produce 1.8 million barrels of oil a day. This is easily enough to offset oil imports from Saudi Arabia. We could even cover Iraq too. Developing the oil beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, could offset imports from Nigeria. Developing the CD-5 project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska--the National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska, set up for petroleum products and production--and BP's Liberty project could replace daily imports from Libya.

This does not even include the tremendous onshore and offshore natural gas resources we have in Alaska. One-third of the country's supply is in Alaska. So why aren't we developing these enormous resources in my State? Two words: politics, bureaucrats.

Mr. President, earlier this year President Obama went to Brazil where he declared that America wants to be a customer for Brazilian oil and natural gas. I have to say, we don't need to go to Brazil to do that. We can do it right here in Alaska, with our people, our resources and our opportunities. I reminded the President of that, and I will remind him on a regular basis. To his credit, I will say later in the month he did mention Alaska. In his call for energy and domestic energy independence, he mentioned Alaska.

Unfortunately, the bureaucrats in his administration are not listening. They are tossing up barriers to additional Alaskan oil and gas production every chance they get. Sadly, some of my colleagues in this body are not much better. Instead of addressing the problem with specific solutions, they are going for headlines by dragging energy company executives before committees or proposing the rollback of incentives for increased domestic energy production, some of which have been on the books for decades.

Let's stop the headline grabbing and get serious about energy security. I have three ideas: First, better coordinate the Federal offshore permitting process. I introduced legislation before our recess to create the Arctic OCS Coordinator, modeled after legislation the late Senator Ted Stevens passed establishing a Federal gas pipeline coordinator. My bill addresses the problem too many projects are caught up in.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Too many projects are caught up in what I call the ``regulatory whack-a-mole.'' You think you have smacked down one regulatory hurdle and another one pops up. My bill would give authority to work across the agencies causing companies so much heartburn today-- the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of the Interior, just to name a few.

Second, let's align the clean air standards for offshore drilling permits among the affected Federal agencies. We must have a level playing field whether you are in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico or the Eastern United States.

As my colleague from Louisiana knows--who is here joining me on the floor--Louisiana has one rule, and Alaska has another rule for the same issue.

Third, let's invest in American transportation and safety infrastructure to develop oil and gas resources in frontier areas. The fact is, we need a far greater Coast Guard presence in the Arctic for oilspill prevention and response.

We also need to invest in our pipeline infrastructure, including the Alaskan Natural Gasoline, to move oil and gas resources from the Arctic to other U.S. regions.

There is a lot of talk right now about ending tax incentives for the oil and gas industry. With the high profits right now, these companies are easy targets. But one thing every Alaskan knows--just because you have an easy target doesn't mean it is the right thing to shoot. It would not decrease gas prices at the pump for our families and our small businesses. It will discourage companies, especially the independents, from domestic investment and job creation.

As someone who represents a State with the highest energy prices in the country, and some of the best renewable and traditional energy resources, I am ready to join my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle to address America's energy needs now. We need to set a hard target. That is why I am asking my colleagues to get serious about a real energy plan and give Americans freedom from high gas prices by the Fourth of July.

Let's work together, roll up our sleeves and pass a real comprehensive energy plan our families and our small businesses can get behind. Let's finally invest in our energy future and put the reforms in place for our long-term energy security.

Mr. President, I recognize my colleague from Louisiana--another great State for oil and gas development--is on the floor with me, and I yield the floor at this time.

That is a hard one to answer because they see the oil flowing. As I mentioned, we have $10-a-gallon gas in some of our communities--$10 a gallon. So it is hard to explain that, yes, we are the big producer, but the rest of the country then picks on us.

I am just listening, and it is unbelievable, the green slice you have there.

To the Senator from Louisiana, let me say, when you describe the moratorium or whatever they call it in the gulf, it is even worse in the Arctic, or even on, as I mentioned when I had the map and I showed the National Petroleum Reserve. That is not a name picked out of the sky by the industry. That was set aside by the government to prepare our country for more energy independence decades ago.

We cannot even get a permit to go across--in some places, they call it a stream. But everyone else now calls it a big river. It is not. It is a very small area. But a bridge to go over to explore for what you described--we cannot even get onto the land the government set aside that would then determine if we have oil and gas. We believe there is, because obviously they have--it is set aside as the National Petroleum Reserve.

But the other piece to this--the Senator hammered away on it and I agree with her--if we are skunks at the garden, so be it, because it is a question of

fairness. As the Senator described the 13 percent of the subsidies or incentives they receive, they produce 60 percent of the energy. But her other statistic is even more dramatic.

Of the remaining 87 percent of those subsidies, they only produce 40 percent of the energy. If this were a business, you would eliminate that part of the equation because it does not give a good return on investment. But we are still doing that, because there is a lot of politics being played.

The point on the tax issue. Like the Senator, I think there should be an overhaul to this tax system. But picking on one industry because it sounds good, rates good in the polls, gets you a couple of headlines, is not what the American people want us to do here. If anything, they are getting fed up with that.

What they want us to do is sit down and, as you have described so eloquently in the description of the country, you bet, I would love every State to do it, produce. Then they would see what we go through. Because we are a collective group of States, we do our part, but we should not be picked up because we do more than our share, because we are trying to help out States that are producing vehicles or producing, you know, a lot of chemical industry, and other things, or the pharmaceutical industry. We can go through those lists that somehow do not end up on these, getting rid of their subsidies.

Your point is right on. If there is anything we should be doing right now--I agree with the Senator--it is the issue of--when I open the paper and I see administration officials, current and past, saying the way we are going to control our energy cost is talk to Saudi Arabia. Is that our energy policy? Because that sure the heck is one that, one, does not create one job here; two, is the worst national policy from a national security perspective; and, three, it is foolish, as I mentioned earlier, that we export $1 billion a day out of this country to buy from countries--and in some cases good allies. Canada is a good example. Some of these countries are not our friends, but we are giving them cash so they can then use it against us. It does not make any sense. You are right, this piece of legislation they have put down without a committee process on it is a gimmick; a gimmick to get the next week of activity, get some press out there. But we have to be serious.

I appreciate the Senator yielding for me to rant a little bit. I am glad you said the part too, the assumption is that these companies pay no taxes, that somehow they get the subsidies and they pay nothing. You bet you they are profitable. They are big companies. They are huge companies. But they pay taxes in the billions to the Treasury of this government. When you listed out all of those differential rates, that is again why we need tax reform. Then I am happy to have this discussion, but not singling out an industry because it is a good political score and good fodder for the newsprint and everything else. I appreciate the Senator yielding me a few more minutes to ramble there a little bit.

If I can make one last comment, the chart that you have up there, there is one other piece on there. It is the Alaska oil pipeline. We are at a little over 600,000 barrels a day going through there. We are losing 6 to 7 percent a year in volume, and it will not be a question--somebody will say: Well, you will get down to zero and then you will stop the pipeline. No. No. When we get down to a level of 300,000 or 400,000 barrels, then it will be questionable if we can even run the line. Then you can actually potentially shut off the whole volume. So the chart there is important because we have to look at the long term. Because if we decide today to have a comprehensive energy plan that includes conservation, alternative energy, renewable energy and, yes, domestic production, the Senator from Louisiana knows, as I know, you cannot walk down the street and say, we are going to start drilling tomorrow and suddenly, voila, there is fuel. It is a 7- to 10- year process. So that chart is a critical chart, because in order to reach that decline, you have to start doing something today. Unless we decide the policy of this country, what the energy policy of this country is, we will pick up the phone and we will call Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, Libya--that is the list, that is our policy--then so be it. I think that is the worst policy we could have ever for this country.

Again, thank you to the Senator from Louisiana. Again, if we are skunks at the garden, my view is we will be good-smelling skunks.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.