Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

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

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

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. No objection.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS. 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 H.R. 1591.

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues Senator Carper, Snowe, Lieberman, Murkowski, and Landrieu in introducing two important domestic energy bills. The Senate has an opportunity to save consumers $15 billion annually in energy costs, eliminate the need for hundreds of new power plants, prevent the release of tons of mercury into our environment annually, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3 trillion pounds, lead the world in the innovation of new technologies and increase domestic employment opportunities. How? The good old fashion light bulb. Thomas Edison was one of our Nation's greatest inventors. He holds nearly 1100 patents, including the light bulb. Over 125 years ago, he invented the conventional incandescent light bulb. While most of his other inventions have been significantly improved upon since then, Edison's incandescent light bulb is still the most widely used bulb today. Unfortunately, only 10 percent of the electricity that goes into this light bulb is actually used to produce light. The remaining 90 percent is often wasted as heat. Just as another Edison invention, the phonograph, evolved into compact discs and mp3 technologies, today, American innovation has improved upon the light bulb. This innovation will continue. Light bulb manufacturers and our hard-working Americans have developed technologies that are capable of reducing the electricity use associated with conventional incandescent light bulbs from between 10 to over 50 percent. These bulbs are available today. These technological and domestic manufacturing capabilities can save consumers billions of dollars a year in energy costs. My colleagues and I are proud to introduce two bills that will ensure that we take advantage of these new technologies to save energy, save consumers on their electricity bills and promote American ingenuity. The first is the Bright Idea Act of 2007. This bill will establish efficiency targets for light bulbs that will cut light bulb energy consumption by at least half in just 6 years and triple the efficiency of today's incandescent bulbs by 2018. These efficiency standards are merely the beginning. The bill establishes a working group of light bulb manufacturers, labor unions, environmentalists and consumer groups to evaluate the state of bulb technologies and domestic manufacturing capabilities every 3 years. If the technology has advanced and our businesses are capable of higher standards, the Secretary of Energy may raise these targets. The bill also authorizes a technology-neutral research and development program to help our domestic manufacturers, in partnership with our national laboratories and universities, advance new lighting technologies and directs the Secretary of Energy to educate consumers about the benefits of using newer light bulbs. We recognize the concerns related to new light bulbs such as mercury release and labeling requirements. The bill requires the Secretary, together with the EPA, to provide recommendations to Congress on how to deal with these challenges. The second component of this light bulb package that we are introducing today is a bill that will ensure that our Nation is capable of taking full advantage of America's lighting innovation through the creation of additional domestic employment opportunities. This bill provides a construction tax credit for the costs associated with the renovation and construction of domestic light bulb manufacturing facilities designed to produce the next generation of lighting technology. I urge Senators to join my colleagues and me in saving consumers billions of dollars in electricity costs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, tempering energy demand, eliminating the need for at least dozens of new power plants annually, preventing the release of tons of mercury into our environment each year and building upon our innovation by creating additional domestic employment opportunities for Americans by supporting the Bright Idea Act of 2007 and tax incentives for domestic lighting technologies. I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues Senator Carper, Snowe, Lieberman, Murkowski, and Landrieu in introducing two important domestic energy bills. The Senate has an opportunity to save consumers $15 billion annually in energy costs, eliminate the need for hundreds of new power plants, prevent the release of tons of mercury into our environment annually, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3 trillion pounds, lead the world in the innovation of new technologies and increase domestic employment opportunities. How? The good old fashion light bulb. Thomas Edison was one of our Nation's greatest inventors. He holds nearly 1100 patents, including the light bulb. Over 125 years ago, he invented the conventional incandescent light bulb. While most of his other inventions have been significantly improved upon since then, Edison's incandescent light bulb is still the most widely used bulb today. Unfortunately, only 10 percent of the electricity that goes into this light bulb is actually used to produce light. The remaining 90 percent is often wasted as heat. Just as another Edison invention, the phonograph, evolved into compact discs and mp3 technologies, today, American innovation has improved upon the light bulb. This innovation will continue. Light bulb manufacturers and our hard-working Americans have developed technologies that are capable of reducing the electricity use associated with conventional incandescent light bulbs from between 10 to over 50 percent. These bulbs are available today. These technological and domestic manufacturing capabilities can save consumers billions of dollars a year in energy costs. My colleagues and I are proud to introduce two bills that will ensure that we take advantage of these new technologies to save energy, save consumers on their electricity bills and promote American ingenuity. The first is the Bright Idea Act of 2007. This bill will establish efficiency targets for light bulbs that will cut light bulb energy consumption by at least half in just 6 years and triple the efficiency of today's incandescent bulbs by 2018. These efficiency standards are merely the beginning. The bill establishes a working group of light bulb manufacturers, labor unions, environmentalists and consumer groups to evaluate the state of bulb technologies and domestic manufacturing capabilities every 3 years. If the technology has advanced and our businesses are capable of higher standards, the Secretary of Energy may raise these targets. The bill also authorizes a technology-neutral research and development program to help our domestic manufacturers, in partnership with our national laboratories and universities, advance new lighting technologies and directs the Secretary of Energy to educate consumers about the benefits of using newer light bulbs. We recognize the concerns related to new light bulbs such as mercury release and labeling requirements. The bill requires the Secretary, together with the EPA, to provide recommendations to Congress on how to deal with these challenges. The second component of this light bulb package that we are introducing today is a bill that will ensure that our Nation is capable of taking full advantage of America's lighting innovation through the creation of additional domestic employment opportunities. This bill provides a construction tax credit for the costs associated with the renovation and construction of domestic light bulb manufacturing facilities designed to produce the next generation of lighting technology. I urge Senators to join my colleagues and me in saving consumers billions of dollars in electricity costs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, tempering energy demand, eliminating the need for at least dozens of new power plants annually, preventing the release of tons of mercury into our environment each year and building upon our innovation by creating additional domestic employment opportunities for Americans by supporting the Bright Idea Act of 2007 and tax incentives for domestic lighting technologies. I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss the overcapitalization of the world's fishing fleets, which is being fueled by the subsidies foreign governments direct to their fishing industries. The problems caused by these subsidies affect not only our global fisheries resources, but also the coastal communities which depend upon them. I introduced a Senate resolution condemning these subsidies and the unsustainable fishing practices they enable. Fisheries resources--especially large predatory species and other commercially valuable fish stocks--have been overexploited by foreign industrial fishing fleets for years. As a result, these stocks have declined precipitously. In fact, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that one-quarter of global fish stocks are overexploited, depleted, or recovering from overexploitation. To a significant extent, the decline of fisheries resources around the world is intensified by the outdated and mistaken assumption--still held by many nations--that our oceans' productivity is infinite and that fish stocks can be harvested without consequence. In the United States, we know this is not the case. While we once used subsidies to increase our harvesting capacity, we have since eliminated this practice. Today, we have developed a fisheries management system which respects and conforms to the requirements of fisheries conservation. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the amendments added in January, continues to ensure our harvests are guided by science-based catch limits. These controls prevent overfishing and provide managers with the tools they need to limit entry and prevent overcapitalization. Unfortunately, sustainable fishing policies are not the norm among all fishing nations. Many countries with subsidized industrial fishing fleets have sought to exploit not only their own waters, but also the high seas. Fisheries in international waters are largely unregulated, but even where international management bodies do exist, these damaging practices are carried out in defiance of international quotas and other harvest limits. Not surprisingly, those countries engaged in illegal, unregulated, and unreported--or ``IUU'' fishing--are often the same ones that use subsidies to expand their fleets. These subsidies, and the IUU fishing associated with them, must end. Today, the capacity of the global fishing fleet is far greater than what is needed to catch the oceans' sustainable level of production. Subsidies also create an uneven playing field among fish trading countries by masking the true cost of fishing. To the economic detriment of the U.S. and other nonsubsidizing nations, up to one- quarter of global fish trade is currently generated by subsidized fisheries. Ultimately, if nations are allowed to stay on this unsustainable path, fish stocks in the global ocean commons will be reduced even further. The United States, with the support of other countries opposed to subsidies, is now leading an international initiative against harmful fisheries subsidies. Last month, the United States Trade Representative presented a proposal to the World Trade Organization which would eliminate this type of subsidy among WTO members. This proposal, being negotiated in the Doha Development Round, holds great promise for ending those subsidies which distort trade, weaken economic conditions in fishing communities, and lead to IUU fishing and other unsustainable harvesting practices. This resolution condemns these harmful foreign fishing subsidies, and I urge each of my colleagues to give it their full support.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to introduce S. 1368, a bill to reauthorize a Federal-State partnership known as the Denali Commission. This Commission plays a crucial role in the development of basic infrastructure for communities in rural Alaska. The Denali Commission was originally established by Congress in 1998. The unique structure of the Commission ensures the most efficient allocation of Federal funds, as it caps administrative expenses at 5 percent and capitalizes on the use of strategic partnerships. Over the course of the past decade, the Commission has partnered with Federal and State agencies, tribal organizations, and local communities to address the unique challenges associated with living in Alaska. In just a short period of time, the Commission has improved the living conditions of rural Alaska by providing job training, teacher housing and funds to improve options for handling solid waste. The bulk fuel projects undertaken by the Commission have reduced the costs of rural energy. The health clinics have increased the availability of health services to rural villages that are isolated from metropolitan areas. There are 240 Alaska Native Villages, and over 100 communities have been served by the Denali Commission. Although the Denali Commission has made tremendous strides to ensure rural Alaska has basic living conditions, there still is work to be done. Many of the rural communities have no roads and their transportation infrastructure is deteriorating. Numerous villages can only be accessed by water, and the docks in the communities are in desperate need of repair. The projects conducted by the Denali Commission not only keep communities connected to mainstream Alaska, projects also foster economic growth. The unemployment rates in many villages remain above 50 percent. The high cost of basic needs, such as milk and oil, coupled with public infrastructure that is comparable to developing nations create difficult circumstance in rural Alaska. The Denali Commission is our best hope for properly addressing these issues and meeting the needs of Alaskans. The continuation of the Denali Commission's presence in rural Alaska is of critical importance to the future of rural Alaska. The bill I introduce today would reauthorize the Denali Commission for 5 years, through fiscal year 2014. Other provisions of this bill would also amend the Denali Commission Act of 1998 to make the Commission stronger and more efficient. Senator Murkowski is an original cosponsor of this legislation, and it is our hope the Senate will act quickly to reauthorize the Denali Commission.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to introduce S. 1368, a bill to reauthorize a Federal-State partnership known as the Denali Commission. This Commission plays a crucial role in the development of basic infrastructure for communities in rural Alaska. The Denali Commission was originally established by Congress in 1998. The unique structure of the Commission ensures the most efficient allocation of Federal funds, as it caps administrative expenses at 5 percent and capitalizes on the use of strategic partnerships. Over the course of the past decade, the Commission has partnered with Federal and State agencies, tribal organizations, and local communities to address the unique challenges associated with living in Alaska. In just a short period of time, the Commission has improved the living conditions of rural Alaska by providing job training, teacher housing and funds to improve options for handling solid waste. The bulk fuel projects undertaken by the Commission have reduced the costs of rural energy. The health clinics have increased the availability of health services to rural villages that are isolated from metropolitan areas. There are 240 Alaska Native Villages, and over 100 communities have been served by the Denali Commission. Although the Denali Commission has made tremendous strides to ensure rural Alaska has basic living conditions, there still is work to be done. Many of the rural communities have no roads and their transportation infrastructure is deteriorating. Numerous villages can only be accessed by water, and the docks in the communities are in desperate need of repair. The projects conducted by the Denali Commission not only keep communities connected to mainstream Alaska, projects also foster economic growth. The unemployment rates in many villages remain above 50 percent. The high cost of basic needs, such as milk and oil, coupled with public infrastructure that is comparable to developing nations create difficult circumstance in rural Alaska. The Denali Commission is our best hope for properly addressing these issues and meeting the needs of Alaskans. The continuation of the Denali Commission's presence in rural Alaska is of critical importance to the future of rural Alaska. The bill I introduce today would reauthorize the Denali Commission for 5 years, through fiscal year 2014. Other provisions of this bill would also amend the Denali Commission Act of 1998 to make the Commission stronger and more efficient. Senator Murkowski is an original cosponsor of this legislation, and it is our hope the Senate will act quickly to reauthorize the Denali Commission.