Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a Senate joint resolution directing the United States to initiate efforts with other Nations to negotiate international agreements for managing migratory and transboundary fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean. As we have seen in far too many cases around the world, fish stocks can easily become depleted when the international community fails to develop effective, science based agreements for conserving and managing shared fish stocks. The goal of this resolution is to ensure that we do not repeat that same mistake with any commercial fisheries that develop in the Arctic Ocean.

In many ways, the Arctic Ocean is the final frontier into which the world's commercial fisheries may expand. Currently, industrial fishing in this ocean has been limited by the distribution of fish habitat and the short duration of favorable fishing conditions, but that may change in the coming years. Scientific evidence suggests that as the world's climate changes, ocean temperature regimes may shift and cause many fish stocks to colonize new habitats in the Arctic Ocean.

Similarly, fishing vessels may gain greater access to previously inhospitable areas of the Arctic.

Taken together, these potential shifts may create favorable conditions for expanding commercial fisheries in the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and other nations that have access to the remote arctic waters.

Having seen the fish stock declines that come when multiple nations target the same stocks without effective coordinated management, it is vital that these nations work together to prevent this outcome.

Given the benefit of foresight and our ability to anticipate the need for international fisheries management systems in the Arctic, we must now begin the process of creating such a system before commercial fisheries become firmly established there.

The North Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council, the body that manages U.S. fisheries in the North Pacific, recognizes the need to develop an effective management plan for Arctic Ocean fishing before significant fishing activity occurs. In June 2007, the council approved a proposal to close all Federal waters in the Arctic Ocean to fishing until they develop and implement a fisheries management plan. This action should serve as a signal to the rest of the United States and to all nations interested in Arctic Ocean fishing that sound conservation and management plans should be our top priority before moving forward to develop commercial fisheries there.

This Senate joint resolution builds upon the efforts of the North Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council and takes it a step further by calling on the United States to lead international efforts to develop international fisheries management agreements for the Arctic Ocean. Such agreements should promote management systems for member nations that emphasize science-based limits on harvests, timely and accurate reporting of catch-and-trade data, equitable allocation and access systems, and effective monitoring and enforcement. These fisheries management principles are consistent with the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments Act that was enacted last January and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. Such principles are vital for preventing proliferation of illegal, unreported, and unregulated--what we call IUU--fishing which unfortunately continues to plague and undermine other international fisheries.

This resolution contains other important provisions as well. While negotiating any agreements for the arctic fisheries, the United States should consult with the North Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council and Alaska Native subsistence communities in the Arctic. And, of course, consistent with the President's October 2006 Memorandum on Promoting Sustainable Fisheries and Ending Destructive Fishing Practices, this resolution calls on the United States to support international efforts to halt the expansion of commercial fisheries on the high seas of the Arctic Ocean until effective international agreements are enforced.

On behalf of Alaska's subsistence and commercial fishing communities and the organizations that work to sustain our fisheries, I thank the many cosponsors of this resolution for sharing our great concern for sound fisheries management.

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

Mr. President, while I support S. 1, I strongly oppose the provision within it which will require members to fully reimburse private plane flights at so-called fair market value. This requirement is unnecessarily excessive for intrastate travel, it places an undue burden on Members from rural States, and its enactment will come at great expense to American taxpayers.

The Senate's current rule requires members to pay the cost of a first-class ticket any time we travel by private plane. In areas with no regularly scheduled air service, Members pay their proportionate cost of chartering the same or similar aircraft. This rule ensures that Members pay the fair market value of traveling on such aircraft, while at the same time recognizing that private air travel is, at times, a necessity. Because these flights often represent the only way to access rural areas, most Members who travel by private plane do so to complete official business.

While I understand the desire to stem the perception and practice of members traveling in lush private jets, in reality, traveling on these types of aircraft is the exception rather than the rule. In my home state, my staff and I routinely travel in propeller and float planes. These are not luxurious jets. If any Member believes differently, I welcome them to travel with me as I traverse the State from Tuntatooliak to Savoonga.

Alaska does not have the transportation infrastructure found in more densely populated areas of the country. More than 70 percent of our State's towns and villages are not accessible by road year-round. We need to fly in order to reach these remote communities. If a private plane with others aboard is going to the same village I am, I should be able to get on that plane at a reasonable price.

During initial consideration of S. 1 in January, Members of the Senate raised concerns regarding the impact that the revised travel rules had on their ability to meet with their constituents. That measure, as drafted, would not have affected lobbyists--it impacted real people and prevented their elected representatives from responding to the issues they face. As such, I offered an amendment designed to address the concerns of rural State Senators in ensuring their ability to continue to travel around their States. I declined to pursue the amendment on the Senate floor when leadership on both sides of the aisle agreed to consider this matter during conference.

Unfortunately, this matter was not addressed because of the Senate's inability to conference the legislation.

While other travel matters were addressed, such as permitting Members to travel on their own planes or on the planes of their family members, the issue of rural transportation costs was not. Given this unfortunate circumstance, I have again introduced an amendment to address this situation. My amendment would require travel on private planes to be precleared by each Chamber's Ethics Committee to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. It would also allow the committee to set and publicly disclose the rate we pay for each trip.

The private plane provision in S. 1 will not produce meaningful reform and will only increase the amount of money Members need from the Treasury to pay for these flights. Ultimately, it will be the taxpayer who foots this bill, and the only real change will be more money in the pockets of those who own and operate private planes.

A perfect example will come later this month, when a Cabinet Secretary and staff travel to Alaska. We plan to visit several western Alaska communities, and private plane is the only way to reach them in a single day.

Under the Senate's current rule, each individual would pay their share of the charter rate or an equivalent first-class fare. This rule is equitable: The operator of the flight would be paid a reasonable expense for our travel.

Under S. 1, my staff and I would pay fair market value--the entire price of the private plane. The Cabinet Secretary and their staff, according to their department's rules, would also reimburse the company for the costs associated with their travel. Any State and local officials who travel with us will likewise be required to pay for their seats.

The end result of this legislation will be a windfall for companies and a travesty for taxpayers--the very opposite of intended effects. Our system needs transparency, not additional financial burdens for hard-working Americans.

I am told that another provision of this legislation may be of interest to many Members of this Chamber--in fact, I may be the only one it will not affect.

Section 601 of S. 1 will require a sitting President, or a President's campaign, to pay for Members who travel on Air Force One. This provision will make campaigns even more expensive than they are today, and again do very little to increase transparency.

Lobbying reform is necessary, but it cannot harm our ability to do our jobs. Members should disclose flights on private planes, provide the reasons for their travel, and receive approval from the Ethics Committee prior to any travel. However, there is absolutely no reason why each seat should be paid for more than once. By requiring the reimbursement of private flights at fair market value, S. 1 will prevent many Members from serving their constituents effectively. While the majority leader's interest in passing this legislation is understandable, the Senate should ensure it does not adversely impact taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to consider these consequences and adopt my amendment.

Mr. President, I missed the 10:30 a.m. vote today because I was at Arlington Cemetery for the interment services for LTG Robert Allen Breitweiser. Lieutenant General Breitweiser was one of the commanding officers of the Fourteenth Air Force when I served in the China-Burma-India theater, and he turned into a good friend when he was assigned to the Alaskan North American Air Defense Command from 1967 to 1969. It was also an occasion for me because Lieutenant General Breitweiser's assistant was Tony Langhorn Motley, who, along with me, survived the airplane crash in which my wife and four others were killed in 1978.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lieutenant General Breitweiser's full biography be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the Chairman and ranking member of the 9/11 bill conference committee for their efforts to bring the conference report before the Senate. This was no small task and they, along with other conferees and staff, are to be commended.

Despite these efforts, however, the final conference report includes objectionable maritime cargo scanning language that could be devastating to both the international and domestic flow of commerce.

The decision to mandate scanning for 100 percent of cargo containers is a risky proposition because it does not follow a risk-based approach:

The title of the final conference report clearly states that its purpose is to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. But the commission did not advocate for the scanning--or even screening--of 100 percent of the containers arriving at our shores.

The 9/11 Commission recommended instead that we mitigate our vulnerabilities to terrorism in a logical manner by applying our resources based on risk, and specifically cautioned us not to employ a blanket approach.

Our Nation's ports, including the Port of Anchorage, are vital to our economies--both regional and national. Ensuring their security must be a top priority. But a mandate to scan every cargo container entering the U.S. could shut down many of these ports, and the resulting delays for both imports and exports would be excessive and costly for consumers.

Moreover, it is likely that foreign nations will disregard any caveats we may provide, and according to a European union diplomat,

The E.U. would consider imposing reciprocal requirements and filing a complaint against the United States in the World Trade Organization.

This fact renders the approach taken by this bill with respect to scanning cargo unworkable internationally.

Here at home, these cargo scanning provisions may be equally, if not more, devastating to rural economies. Communities in the lower 48 are served by multiple transportation modes distributing basic supplies like food and other consumer goods. In Alaska, however, over 90 percent of our supplies flow through the Port of Anchorage. Any disruption at this port would be a disaster for Alaskans, not to mention to the Port of Tacoma, which serves as a

conduit for cargo transiting to and from Alaska.

Some contend that we are not doing enough for port security. I disagree. Not even one year ago, we passed the Safe Port Act. While many of us made these same arguments concerning 100 percent scanning during the debate of that bill, we ultimately settled on directing DHS to conduct a pilot program to determine whether 100 percent scanning of cargo containers is even feasible. The pilot began earlier this year and we are only now beginning to get a clearer picture of the complexities that scanning entails.

Mandating 100 percent scanning of cargo containers without the benefit of the results of the pilot tests is premature and counterproductive.

Homeland security should not be used as a rhetorical tool. Let us first learn from the lessons promised by the Safe Port Act's pilot tests before committing ourselves to an irrational, costly, and potentially ineffective approach to securing our Nation.

I thank the following staff of the Senate Commerce Committee for their hard work on this bill:

Pamela Friedman, Mark Delich, Jarrod Thompson, Chris

Bertram, Mike Blank, Kim Nahigian, Paul Nagle, Christine

Kurth, Dan Neumann, Betsy McDonnell, and David Wonnenberg.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I support this amendment for the dignified treatment of wounded warriors. It creates a comprehensive policy for the care and management of wounded military servicemembers and addresses the health care needs of servicemembers and their families. We urgently need this provision for a seamless transition from military to civilian life.

The policy and standards for the DOD and the Veterans' Administration in this provision will streamline medical and physical disability evaluation processes between the two agencies, allowing for more immediate attention to the care of our wounded instead of focusing on paperwork for the board. This is an exhausting process.

The care of our wounded servicemembers' families is addressed by reimbursing them for related expenses such as travel to medical appointments, or providing medical care to those family members who are providing support to severely injured servicemembers.

This is needed legislation to continue and enhance treatment and diagnosis for traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder, by developing Centers of Excellence, establishing requirements for research, and developing a standard process for pre and post deployment screenings. The amendment will assure a fully coordinated system and it improves the medical tracking process and establishes protocols for quality assurance for deployed servicemembers.

This legislation also directs a jointly integrated policy, created and administered by the Department of Defense and the Veterans' Administration, to better manage and transition servicemembers exiting active service to civilian life.

It requires these two Departments to develop a joint electronic medical record by 2010.

It establishes a joint DOD-VA program office that is responsible for the development, testing, and implementation of the joint health record.

This will expedite the transition of servicemembers to the VA and allow for immediate and uninterrupted treatment by VA clinics and hospitals.

The policies set forth in this amendment will enhance the care for the severely ill or injured by ensuring those former servicemembers who were injured between 2001 and 2012 will receive medical and dental care up to 5 years after separation from the military.

These initiatives are all very much in need to better provide the support and care our dedicated servicemembers deserve, especially after putting their lives on the line.

What is the Dorgan amendment?

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to BG Ken Taylor, who will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery later this afternoon.

From his service as a pilot during World War II to his tenure as Commander of the Alaska Air National Guard, General Taylor was always a hero--in every sense of the word, and to all who knew and loved him.

As a young boy in Oklahoma, Ken set his sights on becoming a pilot. After completing high school and 2 years of college, Ken fulfilled his dream by joining the Army Air Corps.

In April 1941, newly commissioned as a second lieutenant, Ken received his first assignment. He was stationed at Wheeler Field, on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, as a member of the 47th Pursuit Squadron. And it was there, during one of the darkest days in our Nation's history, that Ken's bravery shined brightest.

Early in the morning on December 7, 1941, after a long night of poker, dancing, and a little drinking at the officer's club, Ken awoke to the sound of low flying Japanese aircraft fighters and bombers on course to attack the Navy's Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.

Ken and fellow pilot George Welch, who was staying in a neighboring apartment, took immediate action. They called ahead to their air crew with instructions to load their P-40s with fuel and ammunition.

Both pilots hurriedly pulled their evening wear back on, and sped off in Ken's new Buick toward Haleiwa Field. Dodging Japanese strafing runs and driving at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour, they soon arrived at the airfield. The pair quickly strapped into their P-40 Tomahawks, which were fully fueled but only partially armed.

Outnumbered, outgunned, and without orders, the two pilots taxied to the runway intent on engaging the over 300 unchallenged Japanese aircraft.

Once airborne, Ken and George immediately came under fire. Ken later described the ensuing combat as ``shooting fish in a barrel''--a definite understatement, as the Japanese shot back at their pursuers. At least one round hit Ken's cockpit, embedding shrapnel in his arm and leg.

Determined to stay in the air as long as possible, Ken and George attacked a group of bombers until they ran out of ammunition. The pair then landed at Wheeler Field to resupply and refuel.

While an air crew rearmed their planes, the duo received a dressing down from a superior officer for taking off without orders. The officer also insisted they stay on the ground, but when another attack forced airfield personnel to scatter, Ken and George took the chance to get back into the fight.

With a fresh supply of .50 caliber ammunition, Ken positioned himself on the runway to take off just as a group of dive bombers flew overhead. He described his second takeoff to Army Times as follows:

I took off right toward them, which gave me the ability to

shoot at them before I even left the ground. I got behind one

of them and started shooting again. The only thing I didn't

know at that time was that I got in the middle of the line

rather than the end. There was somebody on my tail. They put

a bullet right behind my head through the canopy and into the

trim tab inside. So I got a little bit of shrapnel in my leg

and through the arm. It was of no consequence; it just scared

the hell out of me for a minute.

Before the last fires were extinguished from the remains of the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor, Ken Taylor and George Welch had shot down at least eight Japanese fighters. Many believe their decision to take to the air prevented a full assault on Haleiwa, saving the field from sure destruction. By the end of the day, the two lieutenants had become America's first heroes of World War II--all while wearing tuxedo pants and a Hawaiian flower-print shirt.

For his tremendous courage under fire, Ken received the Distinguished Service Cross and a Purple Heart. But his service to this Nation was far from finished. Ken went on to fight at Guadalcanal, where he was credited with destroying another Japanese plane. After a broken leg ended his combat career, Ken returned stateside and served for 27 more years. He served in the Alaska Air National Guard.

In 1967, Ken became the Assistant Adjutant General for the Alaska Air National Guard. Before retiring in 1971, he was promoted to Brigadier General and served as the full Commander of the Air Guard.

In this capacity, Ken quickly distinguished himself as an able and respected leader. He worked closely with MG C. F. Necrason, then the Adjutant General of the Alaska National Guard, to save the Air Guard component in our State. Under Ken's direction, the reinvigorated Air Guard units provided rural Alaskans with access to health care, medivacs, and disaster relief services.

As a Senator for Alaska, it was my privilege to work with Ken on many occasions during this period. My wife Catherine's father, Bill Bittner, Sr., was a close friend of Ken's and his fishing partner. Bill and I often spent long summer days fishing with Ken and talking about World War II.

To this day, Ken's family has strong ties to Alaska. Ken's son, Ken Jr., followed in his father's footsteps and also became commander of the Alaska Air National Guard. They remain the only father and son in our Nation's history to have achieved such an honor. Also, Ken Sr.'s grandson, Eric Taylor, now serves in the Alaska Air National Guard with distinction.

The remarkable story of Ken Taylor reminds me of a statement once made by General George Marshall. Asked if America had a secret weapon to help win World War II, General Marshall replied in the affirmative. He said we had ``the best darn kids in the world.''

One can't help but wonder if these words were partly inspired by Ken Taylor, who, at age 21, exemplified great courage and bravery during the battle that drew America into World War II. For those who remember, his was one of the two planes that took off in the movie entitled ``Pearl Harbor.''

It gives me great pride to have known this man. On this solemn day when we put him to rest, let us all take a moment to reflect on the life--and honor the memory--of this great American hero.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it gives me great pride to salute three brave young airmen stationed at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. SSGt Bryan Fletcher, SrA Elicia Greer, and SrA John Rogers displayed remarkable heroism--and saved a life--on the evening of June 16, 2007.

The three airmen were riding recreational vehicles near Jet Ski Lake in Fairbanks when they heard a woman scream. They immediately stopped to help, and saw an unconscious man about to drown in the lake. Staff Sergeant Fletcher dove into the water first, followed by Senior Airman Greer. They proceeded to pull the man out and began cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Senior Airman Rogers, who was riding a distance away, soon arrived to help in this effort.

Airmen Fletcher, Greer, and Rogers spent several minutes administering CPR to Joseph Mead before they registered any response. All three took turns performing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and compressing Mead's heart. They continued CPR until the University of Alaska Fire Department arrived to take over. Mead was safely revived, taken to the hospital, and released the next day with no lasting injuries.

The lakeside rescue is not the first time these individuals have displayed tremendous heroism--each has also served in Iraq with distinction. As veterans of U.S. Army combat convoy duty, they were tasked with dangerous and difficult work in the most demanding of circumstances. Like their recent rescue of Joseph Mead, however, no challenge has yet proven too difficult for them to overcome.

Staff Sergeant Fletcher hails from McCloud, TX; Senior Airman Greer is from Bozeman, MT; and Senior Airman Rogers is from Cumberland Gap, TN. They are currently assigned to the 354th Logistics Readiness Squadron at Eielson Air Force Base, where they serve Alaska and our Nation with honor.

A few days after the rescue, Joseph Mead's cousin, Ben Saylor, said, ``This is a reminder that there are good people in this world.'' He is right. These airmen epitomize the kind of quiet professionalism and unassuming valor our men and women in uniform demonstrate on a daily basis. I join all Alaskans in commending their courageous actions.

Mr. President, is the pending business the Reid substitute?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 1792 be called up and modified by amendment No. 1843.

Mr. President, the fuel economy compromise that I filed yesterday, as now amended, is a step toward addressing our energy crisis. I thank my dear friend chairman Inouye and his staff for working across the aisle to ensure a bipartisan measure. I support the notion articulated by the President in his State of the Union Address that we need to modernize the Nation's fuel economy program, and save a significant amount of fuel over the next decade. I believe the provision we now consider would effectuate that policy goal in a thoughtful and functional way.

Once again, our Nation stands at a crossroads in our history. The United States faces an energy crisis, but we find ourselves trapped in a vicious cycle which will only make its consequences more severe. While our Nation is blessed with enormous natural resource potential, inconsistent government policies discourage their exploration and development. As a direct result, the amount of oil imported each year is increasing, and our Federal lands, including those in my home State of Alaska, are being withdrawn from oil and gas development and exploration. These policies have been--and will continue to be detrimental to our national security and long-term environmental economic health. The time has come for those of us in Congress, as the custodians of the public trust, to make the difficult energy policy decisions that will serve to benefit future generations.

Those who advocate a one-approach-fixes-all solution are misleading the American public. The only way our Nation will achieve energy independence is through a combination of initiatives. Conservation, domestic production, and the development of alternative sources of energy are all parts of the broader solution. The end to our crisis lies in the balance between them, and the advancement of each will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One initiative without the others will simply not be enough to achieve our energy objective.

The fuel economy provisions of this bill would enhance conservation. The measure would remove the legal ambiguity that for years has inhibited the Secretary of Transportation from raising fuel economy standards for passenger cars, and mandate significant fuel economy increases for both passenger cars and light trucks.

By providing authority to increase standards for passenger vehicles, and challenging automobile makers to invest toward the achievement of a specific fuel economy target, this amendment would provide consumers with fuel savings at the pump, limit our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I am fully aware of the aggressiveness of the target standard set forth in this bill and the challenges involved with reaching the fuel economy standard for the domestic vehicle fleet. And I thank Chairman Inouye for agreeing to allow regulatory flexibility in the event that the targets set forth by this legislation are not feasible. But the overall charge to the auto industry set forth in this measure is not unfamiliar to the industry during times of geopolitical instability. In fact, the CAFE program was born out of very similar circumstances in 1973, during the Arab oil embargo. At the time, our Nation recognized that it was in our national interest to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil by demanding better fuel economy from our automobiles. History has now repeated itself and a combination of events, including the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and geopolitical unrest, has precipitated once again the need for difficult energy conservation determinations.

Mr. President, the terrorist attacks waged on this country on September 11, 2001, and the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East have brought into focus the need to reduce our dependence on all foreign oil. The United States imports almost 11 million barrels of crude oil every day, compared with only 5 million produced here at home. And more than 2 million imported barrels arrive from the Persian Gulf each day. Domestic consumption has increased since 1993 from 17 million to 21 million barrels per day. The savings achieved by increasing fuel economy standards for the entire domestic passenger vehicle fleet is an essential component of our comprehensive strategy to increase our energy independence and national security.

But any change to fuel economy standards requires the careful balance of many factors, including national security, consumer preference, domestic employment, as well as the need for powerful and durable vehicles in rural America, including my home State of Alaska. While the fuel economy provisions in this amendment would set aggressive goals, they would also provide the Secretary the authority to balance these market and national security considerations, and to make the appropriate and necessary fuel economy increases.

By significantly improving fuel economy in our passenger vehicle fleet, we will inherently reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While the cause of global climate change has yet to be fully determined, its speed and impacts are more evident in Alaska than anywhere in the country.

Many believe global climate change is attributable partly to manmade activities. Temperatures are rising in the Arctic region at more than twice the rate of the rest of the world, according to the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, and many impacts in Alaska such as erosion and flooding exacerbated by climate change require immediate attention and planning of responses.

Mr. President, our Nation needs a new energy paradigm. The 21st century will be the proving ground for our commitment to achieve both energy independence and a clean, sustainable environment. The fuel economy provisions in the amendment address conservation and are intended as an aggressive first step of a more holistic energy policy.

The current energy crisis cannot be resolved through conservation alone, and we cannot suspend the law of supply and demand while we anticipate alternative technologies and energy sources. I remain steadfast in my belief that allowing for the development of our domestic resources, particularly in my State of Alaska, is an essential component of a successful energy policy.

While my colleagues in the past have narrowly defeated efforts to effectuate that calling, I will not give up on advancing the need for such production. The development of our domestic resources would generate billions of dollars for the Federal Government, which could aid in our quest for alternative sources of energy if we use this new revenue to invest in research efforts and infrastructure development.

Mr. President, I ask for action on the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, I ask that the sponsors of the amendment that has just been adopted be myself, Senator Inouye, Senator Feinstein, Senator Lott, Senator Kerry, Senator Carper, Senator Hagel, Senator Snowe, Senator Dorgan, Senator Alexander, Senator Cantwell, Senator Corker, Senator Dole, Senator Craig, and Senator Sununu, in that order.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Dodd and I introduced the Family Leave Insurance Act of 2007, which builds upon important protections established by the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, of 1993.

Our legislation would provide 8 weeks of paid benefits to private and Federal employees who take leave for reasons permitted by the FMLA. These include a serious health condition; care for a critically ill child, spouse, or parent; and the birth or adoption of a child.

Benefits would be provided to workers based on their annual income level. As an example, those earning less than $20,000 per year would receive 100 percent of their benefits, while those earning $60,000 to $97,000 would receive 40 percent. This scaled approach has two advantages: it will keep program costs low, and offer the greatest help to those who need it most.

In the past, many have expressed apprehension over the costs associated with family and medical leave. These concerns are valid, and steps must be taken to ensure neither employees nor employers are burdened by this or any similar program.

As introduced, this insurance fund would be financed by employees, employers, and the Federal Government. Employees would contribute 0.2 percent of their earnings, employers would match this percentage, and the Federal Government would pay any administrative expenses not covered by those payments. In truth, these costs are minimal for all involved. A worker who receives a $1,000 paycheck would disburse just $2 to receive full coverage.

While my support for this bill is not absolute, it does address an important shortcoming of the FMLA: employees who need leave often do not take time off because they simply cannot afford to do so. Senator Dodd has rightly described this as a terrible choice for individuals-- one which forces a decision between ``the job they need and the family they love.'' Those of us in the Senate must do everything we can to help hard-working American families, and this bill represents a significant first step in those efforts.

As the father of six children, I deeply understand the challenges families face following childbirth, in times of sickness, and when loved ones fall ill. In Alaska, the majority of parents hold full-time jobs outside the home, which often makes this pressure even more intense.

I commend Senator Dodd for his continued leadership on this issue, and look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and leaders in the business community to improve this bill as it moves through the legislative process.

Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Dodd and I introduced the Family Leave Insurance Act of 2007, which builds upon important protections established by the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, of 1993.

Our legislation would provide 8 weeks of paid benefits to private and Federal employees who take leave for reasons permitted by the FMLA. These include a serious health condition; care for a critically ill child, spouse, or parent; and the birth or adoption of a child.

Benefits would be provided to workers based on their annual income level. As an example, those earning less than $20,000 per year would receive 100 percent of their benefits, while those earning $60,000 to $97,000 would receive 40 percent. This scaled approach has two advantages: it will keep program costs low, and offer the greatest help to those who need it most.

In the past, many have expressed apprehension over the costs associated with family and medical leave. These concerns are valid, and steps must be taken to ensure neither employees nor employers are burdened by this or any similar program.

As introduced, this insurance fund would be financed by employees, employers, and the Federal Government. Employees would contribute 0.2 percent of their earnings, employers would match this percentage, and the Federal Government would pay any administrative expenses not covered by those payments. In truth, these costs are minimal for all involved. A worker who receives a $1,000 paycheck would disburse just $2 to receive full coverage.

While my support for this bill is not absolute, it does address an important shortcoming of the FMLA: employees who need leave often do not take time off because they simply cannot afford to do so. Senator Dodd has rightly described this as a terrible choice for individuals-- one which forces a decision between ``the job they need and the family they love.'' Those of us in the Senate must do everything we can to help hard-working American families, and this bill represents a significant first step in those efforts.

As the father of six children, I deeply understand the challenges families face following childbirth, in times of sickness, and when loved ones fall ill. In Alaska, the majority of parents hold full-time jobs outside the home, which often makes this pressure even more intense.

I commend Senator Dodd for his continued leadership on this issue, and look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and leaders in the business community to improve this bill as it moves through the legislative process.

Mr. President, on June 20, 1977--30 years ago to this day--oil began flowing through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. This event represents an important milestone in Alaska's history and a watershed moment in our struggle to secure America's energy independence.

My distinguished colleague from Alaska, Senator Lisa Murkowski, spoke at length about the history of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline before we adjourned last night. As she so vividly illustrated, its creation was a monumental undertaking which required the hard work of countless individuals.

During the long political fight to allow this important project to proceed, members of the environmental lobby claimed the pipeline would devastate Alaska. History has proven these critics wrong--responsible development and attentive stewardship have ensured the continued protection of our State's wildlife and lands.

Even after the Arab oil embargo in 1973, the Senate remained closely divided on this matter. In fact, a tie vote on the authorizing legislation was not broken until Vice President Spiro Agnew cast the decisive vote in its favor. My own vote on that bill still ranks as one of the most memorable I have ever cast.

When construction began in 1974, this project was the largest ever financed by private capital. Engineers faced staggering challenges as they plotted a route across 800 miles of rugged terrain and three major mountain ranges. Various geographic hurdles also necessitated the construction of seven airfields, dozens of bridges, and a 360-mile-long road to connect Prudhoe Bay to Fairbanks.

Just more than 3 years after construction started, however, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was ready to operate. Since then, more than 15.5 billion barrels of crude oil have been sent from Alaska's North Slope, through the pipeline to Valdez, and on to refineries throughout the country.

The revenues generated by this production have had a tremendous impact in Alaska and throughout the United States. Over the past 30 years, North Slope oil production has added more than $300 billion to the U.S. economy and reduced domestic oil imports by more than $200 billion. Energy will always cost money, but instead of sending our dollars overseas, North Slope oil production--made possible by the Trans-Alaska Pipeline--has greatly contributed to economic growth here at home.

In Alaska, the economic effects of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline are even more apparent. Last year, revenues from oil production and transportation accounted for nearly 90 percent of the State government's total income--funds which were then used to help pay for our schools, our roads, and other important projects. North Slope oil revenue also provides the foundation for the permanent fund dividend, which will help assure the well-being of future generations of Alaskans.

When oil began to flow through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in 1977, gasoline cost a mere 38 cents per gallon. Today, the nationwide average has soared to $3.00 per gallon, and many experts predict this price will reach $4.00 by the end of summer.

As those of us in the Senate continue to debate a comprehensive energy policy for our Nation, we must take note of the consequences of 30 years of oil production in Alaska. Instead of the ecological disaster many predicted, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline has been an economic lifeline for our Nation. It continues to prove we can balance environmental concerns with the production of our natural resources. I urge my colleagues to heed this lesson.

Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support of the Travel Promotion Act of 2007, which I introduced late yesterday with Senator Inouye and Senator Dorgan.

Our legislation has a simple purpose: To increase the number of foreign tourists who visit the United States.

To accomplish this goal, two complementary strategies must be undertaken: existing travel problems must be resolved, and fundamental improvements must be made to the manner in which we market our country to prospective tourists.

First, the efficiency of our border entry and screening processes must be improved. The Commerce Committee recently held two hearings on this issue, and industry leaders testified about the adverse effect September 11, 2001, has had on travel to the United States.

Heightened security measures implemented after 9/11, while necessary, continue to inconvenience many travelers. We heard witnesses describe the aforementioned difficulties international

visitors face with regard to our Nation's entry and screening processes, including the issuance of visas.

To address these problems, the Senate has already passed legislation that establishes a ``Model Ports'' program at the 20 busiest international airports in the United States. This program should reduce bottlenecks to safely and efficiently move travelers through the screening process.

The legislation we introduced yesterday, the Travel Promotion Act, would establish a nonprofit corporation to promote travel to the United States. This entity would not use one cent of taxpayer funds.

Instead, this corporation will be funded by fees paid by travelers who enter our country and matching contributions from members of the travel and tourism industry.

The corporation would be led by experts in the travel and tourism industry, appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, and held accountable by Congress. This essential step will let foreign visitors know that our country is open to tourists.

The travel and tourism industry plays an important role in every State. Those of us in Congress should take steps to resolve these pressing issues and encourage tourists to visit America.

In my home State of Alaska, the travel and tourism industry is the second largest private sector employer. More than 24,000 Alaskans hold tourism-related jobs, and the industry contributes more than $2 billion to our State's economy each year.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is this an exclusive list?

No objection.

Madam President, it was with great sadness that Catherine and I learned of Senator Craig Thomas' passing last night. The people of Wyoming have lost a tireless advocate and a skilled leader. Those of us in the Senate have lost a true friend and a genuine inspiration.

Craig and I remained close throughout our time as colleagues. I visited with him on matters pertaining to resource development and ranches probably more than any other Member of the Senate. These weren't visits concerning legislation, but simply to share experiences and to get advice.

Although Craig came to the Senate much after I did, he possessed a wealth of knowledge, particularly about the West. I had the privilege of marrying into a family with small ranches in Arizona. Craig and I talked often about horses, the problems facing ranches and cowboys, and how they can endure in today's economy.

In each of the past several years, Craig has introduced a resolution designating a National Day of the American Cowboy. More than any other member of this body, Craig recognized there is more to cowboys than roping, riding, and branding. From the Wild West to the Last Frontier, cowboys have long symbolized the spirit and determination which makes our Nation great. It was my pleasure to help sponsor Craig's resolutions, and this year, on July 28, we will pay special tribute to a man who truly embodied the American cowboy.

Craig was always mindful of the best interests of other Western States. As a Senator from Wyoming, he represented a State with a great many problems in common with those of us from Alaska. Craig was renowned for his legislative efforts regarding national parks. His efforts to improve rural health care greatly benefitted his constituents and continue to serve as a model for our Nation.

Above all, I remember working with Craig on resource issues related to coal, oil, and land management. He was steadfast in his efforts to increase domestic energy production. He fought to secure funding for a coal gasification plant in his home State, and he also supported exploration and development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

To deal with Craig Thomas was to deal with a gentleman, a person who had absolute knowledge of the topics he spoke on. You couldn't talk to him without becoming aware you were talking to a marine. As far as I am concerned, marines have something special about them--an absolute steadfastness, honesty, and integrity. Craig exemplified these qualities.

It is hard for me to realize he is now gone. Just before I left to go home this past recess, I stopped Craig and told him we are praying for him and to hang in there. Our great friend Susan Butcher also died of leukemia. She went through the same process Craig did. He told me he was going to stick with it. He thought he was going to be able to beat it. Everyone who met with Craig in the period after he was diagnosed with leukemia had to admire his courage, his absolute courage.

Craig's concept of life impressed me most. He lived life to the fullest. He had a wonderful family, four wonderful children, and a wonderful wife in Susan. He was also the essence of a Westerner. I have known many Westerners in my day, but never one who was as consummate a Westerner as Craig Thomas. The people of Wyoming were blessed to have him representing their interests. Whenever he went home, Craig traveled throughout his State, from one small community to the next. We compared notes about how Wyoming residents faced problems similar to those of the people of Alaska.

With Craig's passing, the Senate has lost a great leader in terms of Western values. But we have also lost a man who was a friend. He had the qualities everyone cherishes in a friend. And as the Senator from Oklahoma has said, he was very devout. You couldn't talk to Craig without realizing he had tremendous faith in our Maker. He was guided by this faith, and it kept him going during the past few months.

It is also hard to understand that leukemia is such a violent disease. This year alone, more than 44,000 Americans will be diagnosed with leukemia. The type of cancer which afflicted Craig, acute myeloid leukemia, has a 5-year survival rate of just 21 percent.

If there is anything I would add to what is going to be said today, it is that we must do more. We must do more to prevent this disease. We must learn as much as possible, and apply as much research as possible, because very few people survive their tremendous battle with leukemia. Of all people, I really believed Craig might. When I left for the Memorial Day recess, I had a good feeling--Craig was going to make it. He told me he would soon start another round of chemotherapy, but because of his strong faith, he had no fear of what lay ahead.

I hope the Senate takes a lesson from Craig Thomas' attitude as he faced this adversity. After being diagnosed with leukemia, Craig faced trials and tribulations we can hardly imagine, and we will remember him as an example of a man with great moral strength and great faith in God. In honor of his memory, it is my hope we will join together and find a way to apply more funds to research leukemia, whose devastating impact has now taken a good friend from our Senate family.

This morning, the Casper Star-Tribune published several individuals' recollections of Craig. One of his former staff members, Liz Brimmer, said, ``In unassuming and generous ways, he did more for Wyoming, more for Wyoming people, than most people knew. His positive spirit permeated every interaction. Fiercely loyal and generous of spirit, Craig was funny and tenacious all in the same moment . . . He loved people and loved to make a difference. What better mark of a man?'' I wish I could find words as eloquent and as fitting to describe this extraordinary Senator.

We all mourn his death, and we send our love and best wishes to his family. Susan had a husband, and his children had a father, without equal. Craig Thomas was a family man through and through, and I am deeply saddened by his passing.

When I thought about him this morning, who he was and what he meant to the Senate, a few words came to mind. In a place of great debate and heightened political excitement, Craig Thomas was always a gentleman. That says something. It certainly is something we will remember. In a time and place where we often raise our voices in anger and emotion, Craig Thomas was always soft spoken, but he was always heard. In a time when many of us fail even our own standards in terms of integrity, he was a man of high integrity, honorable and humble. In a place where many show weakness, he always showed strength, that quiet strength of a Wyoming cowboy.

I thought about his last battle with cancer. You could tell, when you saw him on the floor or passed him in the hallway, the therapy had taken its toll on him personally. Yet there was always a smile on his face, a determination to overcome the odds, and a very optimistic and positive word when you asked him how he was doing. Those are the things I remember about Craig Thomas.

We serve with many people. They come and go. The annals of history do not record them all as great, but each one of us is lucky to be here and lucky to develop the friendships and relationships we do. Politically, Craig Thomas and I were worlds apart. There might not be any starker contrast in voting records than Craig Thomas and mine, but it didn't make much difference when it came to his friendship and his personal relationship. I am going to miss him. I am going to miss that Wyoming cowboy who had the Remington bronzes in his office that I walked by and looked at every time I came down the corridor. I will miss his smile and his courage. But I am going to be reminded by his example of how we can all be a little bit better in what we do here in the Senate.

I extend my sympathies to his wife Susan, his family, his staff, and all of his friends. He was truly a great Senator. I was honored to count him as a friend.

I say to my friend from Hawaii that it is my understanding that the Senator is correct. I am advised that the funding in this bill for Defense Subcommittee matters is identical to that agreed to by the Senate on April 26, 2007, except in three areas. The increase in this bill for the Defense Health program is nearly $1.876 billion while the previous bill would have increased the health program by $2.126 billion. In addition, this bill has reduced funding for the Defense Working Capital Fund by $200 million and reduced the initiative for the Strategic Reserve Readiness Fund by $385 million. Aside from these changes the funding in this bill is exactly the same as previously passed.

I agree completely with my good friend. The intent of those of us who oversee the Defense Department and the drafting of this bill was to provide funds as specified in the joint explanatory statement which accompanied H.R. 1591.

I concur in the Senator's assessment. The Defense Subcommittee reviewed many matters before it prepared Senate Report 110-37 regarding the supplemental appropriations request before the Senate. In putting together H.R. 2206, our intent was to continue the guidance that the Senate included in its report. In addition, we have concurred in the guidance of House Report 110-60 except in those areas specifically noted in the joint explanatory statement which accompanied

I say to my friend I agree with his assertion. I share his view that the Department of Defense should use the two committee reports and the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference accompanying H.R. 1591 to discern the will of Congress in respect to this bill H.R. 2206.