Mark Begich

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the New START treaty. I do so for several reasons. First, of course, the treaty is essential for national security. It promotes transparency and stability between the two countries that possess the majority of the world's nuclear weapons. It will decrease the likelihood of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of a rogue nation. For the residents of my State, the treaty is close to home, literally. Alaska and Russia are less than 3 miles apart at the closest point in the Bering Sea. Commerce, scientific, educational, and cultural exchanges are commonplace between Alaska and our Russian neighbors. So peaceful coexistence with Russia is more than an abstract concept to my constituents; it is a way of life. The second reason this treaty is personal for Alaskans is because of our close proximity to North Korea. When North Korea's leader exercises his political muscle by firing test missiles or threatening to attack the United States, Alaskans get nervous because we are most directly in the line of fire. Thankfully, my home State is home to the ground-based missile defense system. Based at Fort Greely, this sophisticated system of more than two dozen ground-based interceptors is maintained and operated by highly trained members of the Alaska National Guard. I was pleased to show Defense Secretary Robert Gates this state-of-the-art system last year. I worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure this system gets the resources and funding it warrants to protect us. I will continue to do that. I would be troubled if the New START treaty impacted our Nation's missile defense system. I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be equally concerned. Fortunately, such concerns are unfounded. I am confident nothing in this treaty will limit our ability to defend ourselves and our allies against a ballistic missile attack from a rogue nation. The preamble of this treaty simply acknowledges the relationship between offensive and defensive strategic arms and verifies that current defensive strategic arms do not undermine the offensive forces. The preamble is nonbinding. There is no action or inaction arising from this statement. The section of the treaty prohibiting conversion of missile silos or launchers for ballistic missile defense purposes does not impact us. It is not something we are planning to do. In fact, we are in the process of completing a missile field in Alaska to field interceptors. The field will have seven spare silos to deploy more interceptors if we need them. We are moving forward with the phased adaptive approach to protect our allies, with the two-stage interceptor as a hedge. The unilateral statement by Russia also is nonbinding and is not even part of the treaty. Our own unilateral statements make it clear that this treaty will not constrain missile defense in any way and that we will continue improving and deploying missile defense systems to protect us and our allies. These types of statements in a treaty are not unprecedented. The right to withdraw has been stated in many previous treaties--the nonproliferation treaty and the START treaty. Those statements did not stop the Senate from ratifying those treaties. The language in the New START treaty should not either. In fact, this treaty actually helps missile defense because it lessens restrictions on test targets that were in the previous treaty. We will have more flexibility in testing. We have heard from our national security leaders that this treaty does not constrain ballistic missile defense in any way. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, Missile Defense Agency Director LTG Patrick O'Reilly, former Strategic Commander GEN Kevin Chilton, and countless others confirm that this treaty in no way limits our ballistic missile defense plans. We cannot disregard the views of our Nation's most senior military and civilian leaders on this critical issue because of politics. We have had almost 7 months to consider this treaty. We have had numerous hearings and briefings--more on this treaty than any other single item I have been involved in since I have been here. In that time, I heard no current or former national security leader say this treaty is a detriment to ballistic missile defense. What they say and what we know is that the New START treaty will strengthen national security and will not constrain ballistic missile defense. For all of these reasons, I urge a prompt approval of this vital treaty for our Nation and our world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, I signed on to the Sessions-McCaskill bill because I think we need to get somewhere with the deficit. We signed a resolution letter to get it under control. I wasn't planning to speak. I was going to head home. But it triggered me when one of our colleagues on that side said, ``who wins tonight?'' That is not what this should be about. It is not who wins or loses. The American people are losing every day that we have this bickering that goes on. Honestly, I didn't see the pile of paper with the logo on it until I got to my seat. That is not necessary for us to get on with our business. I was listening to the Senator from Tennessee, who was a former mayor, and I was a former mayor. He was talking like a mayor. That is what we need here, people who think in the long term, how we get there. That is where we need to go. I didn't come here to hear the bickering that just went on a little bit ago and see the prop that was brought out. That is not why Alaska sent me here. Who wins and loses? My State of Alaska is losing tonight, because we cannot get our work done after a year. Almost a quarter of the Senate sat and worked on this in multiple committees to get this bill to us. Here we are. We can argue the timing and all that, but the fact is, I look to both Democrats and Republicans on the Appropriations Committee. I listen to them, and my staff works with them to hear about the bill that is being put together. I am impressed all the time when I hear the votes that come out of there. They are almost unanimous. That is rare in this world we live in here. We cannot continue to bring props like that down and say who wins and loses, and then giggle about it as they leave the floor. The public is fed up with that. If there is one thing they told us in November, it was to get busy and quit the gamesmanship. So I am looking forward to the Senator's comments. We had a very productive meeting talking about tax reform, deficit management, and how we need to control spending. That is the direction we have to go in. But we are not going to get there with these games. I know both sides--and you are right, we should not cast blame. We are all at fault here. This may be the moment that we finally say to ourselves, no more show and tell, no more gimmicks. Let's get serious, and the winners should be the American people. I sat here and listened to the Senator and I feel like the mayor was coming out of him. As a former mayor, he has had to reach across to both sides. Senator Gregg said in his farewell speech that we get work done between the 40 yard lines. He is right. We have to get back there and quit being on the fringes for the media that sits up here, and wherever else they watch us from. I am looking forward to maybe going home and getting a good night's sleep and coming back with a fresh attitude tomorrow. I am controlling my emotions as best I can tonight. The words of the Senator from Tennessee--I wish those were the words that started the debate tonight. That is not what happened. I look forward to whatever we can do to get through this maze and get on with the show and get what the American people are looking for, and that is results from the Congress maybe will go from 13 percent popularity to 14 percent approval. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Thank you to the Senator from Illinois for giving us a little time before you have your maiden speech. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Let me echo and associate my comments with all of the Members who have spoken previously, and thanks to Senator Warner and Senator Chambliss for their work in bringing truly a bipartisan approach to how we start the discussion and move forward on deficit management and tax reform, which is critical for this country. You have heard all of the statistics, all of the numbers, all of the reasons why we should do it. But pretty simply, the way I look at this, if there is one issue in my 2008 campaign that I talked about at the very beginning of the campaign it was about the deficit and what was happening, how much of your tax dollars are going toward paying the debt, paying the interest. I know, Madam President, you spoke about it, the interest costs that are absorbing the amount of the budget here. But in reality, I remember in 2008, no one paid much attention. Then suddenly the crash occurred at the end of 2008 and then everyone wanted to talk about it, because it affected them and they now saw the picture. But where we are today is an important point. Tonight we will have a vote on a tax package that will be temporary, a 2-year fix to a much more complicated problem. When I came to the body here, I sat down with a couple of Senators, both on the Republican side and Democratic side, talked about the issue of reform, and recognized that we are truly going to change the way our Tax Code works. We cannot do these in bits and pieces. It has to be true reform. So as we move into this next year, 2011, not only do we have to take the tough decisions regarding the deficit, we have to be aggressive about tax reform if you want to create certainty to the business community and our economy. A 2-year fix does not do that. I know there are many who have spoken before me on all of the data points. But purely and very simply put, if we do not deal with this now--and ``now'' is in the next few months--we will hit that crashing wall, we will hit it hard, and we will not have choices because we have not made a plan regarding the deficit and tax reform. I thank the people who have put this together, Senator Warner, Senator Chambliss, and thank all of the Members, over two dozen, Republicans and Democrats, who are here tonight talking about the need for serious attention to the deficit and tax reform. I look forward to next year. I yield the floor.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, as you know, I was presiding this morning. I was not scheduled to speak, but this time I decided to inform my staff that I would be speaking so they would not be surprised. First, with all due respect to the Senator from Arizona, let's not cast shadows on either side. We are all in this together. You cannot blame one side or the other for delay. I could argue that the food safety bill took way too long because of three filibusters from the other side. But we are here. I am new to this whole process the last 2 years, and I have been patient about the issues we face and talk about. But this one is a fundamental issue. It is not a question of how long we extend these tax benefits for the middle class; it is who gets them--the middle class or the wealthy, the millionaires and billionaires. I heard my good friend, the Senator from South Dakota--we just sponsored a piece of legislation that passed--talk about the small businesspeople, that they will be affected. Well, let me give some data points because it is one thing to have opinions, it is another thing to have facts. Let's just focus on the facts. The bottom line is businesses in this country. I can speak as a small businessperson, I think the only one--if not broadly, pretty darn close--who has small businesses in this Chamber. My wife has four retail businesses. She started her businesses selling smoked salmon on a street corner on a vending cart. Today, she employs 30-some employees, struggling every day but making a difference in the small business world. Who are these people, the small business community I hear people from the other side talking about? I have no clue whether most of them have been in it, but I have. Who are these people? These are the people we get our drycleaning from or when we go to the convenience store, the pizza parlor, wherever it might be, these are the small businesses we are talking about. The small business community of this country that makes $1 million gross--that is not their taxable income; gross--$1 million and under, where probably their net income is well below $200,000 on that, the taxable income, is 95 percent of the businesses of this country. I like the $250,000-and-under proposal. I also like the compromise Senator Schumer has brought forward--$1 million and under--because it catches 95-plus percent of the small businesses of this country. I continue to hear from the other side that we are going to have an impact on the small business community. You are not. If you support the efforts of helping the middle class and you support the efforts of helping small business--businesses that gross $1 million and under--and for those who don't know the difference between gross and net, net is the profit on which they get taxed; gross is what they sell the products for, not what they get taxed on. Don't confuse the numbers and confuse the American people. And 95-plus percent of the businesses will enjoy the tax relief and break. So don't be confused by some of the numbers that are thrown around on the other side or their one-liners. I am going to tell you from Alaska, when I go back to Alaska and I listen to the constituency or when I get the phone calls, e-mails, the thousand-plus letters and e-mails I get every single week, what do they want? They want to make sure the small business community--because in our State 56 percent of the employment is generated by small businesses, small businesses that every day are making a difference. Those are the folks on whom we are focused. It is a question of not how long these extensions are but who gets them. Is it the millionaire- billionaire club or the people? I know the other side complains and even some on our side complain that we are here on Saturday, but you know there are a lot of Alaskans, a lot of Americans, a lot of folks from Colorado who are working today. They are working on Saturday, working on Sunday, working one or two or three jobs. First, I say to my colleagues, we are here to have a debate. Some might want to call it political. Well, welcome to politics, where 100 people get elected to a political process. This is what I came for--a debate and discussion about what is important to the American people, to the people whom I represent--Alaskans. That is what I came here for. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal--again, not a very liberal magazine--as well as the Washington Post, which some may consider a liberal paper--read their headlines. We can talk about what is making the economy move. What is making the economy move is consumer confidence, not millionaire and billionaire confidence, I can tell you that. They have $2 trillion stuffed away in a bank account. My friend from Iowa is right--he and I have done some work together, and I respect him greatly--he is right: $2 trillion is stuffed away with the millionaires and billionaires. But the people who are expending the resources and buying this economy are the middle class, the working people of this country. It is a question of, who are we going to support? Who are we going to help? We do have these huge deficits. We have to make some decisions sooner or later. Today's is one of those decisions. I hope we are going to make a decision that, millionaires and billionaires, we are not going to fund your tax bonus, your tax giveaway from the taxpayers, on the backs of the future. But we are going to help the small business community. We are going to help the middle class. When you look at the numbers--Cyber Monday--some of you may not know what this is; I do because I am in the retail business in our family-- versus Black Friday, which is the Friday after Thanksgiving, and then there is Cyber Monday, which occurs Monday, Cyber Monday alone raked in a historic $1 billion. Now, no disrespect for the millionaires and billionaires, but they are not on Cyber Monday, I guarantee you that. Everyday Americans are, everyday Alaskans are--especially in Alaska because we have to get a lot of products that are not necessarily always in our State. Double-digit increases to the automobile industry--an automobile industry that we helped out to make sure they could survive, but now they are having double-digit sales. Home sales in October, existing home sales, which is critical to clean the inventory--again, I am from the real estate industry, and I know this--10.4 percent increase in October. That is not millionaires and billionaires who buy those homes because they just trade among their friends; these are working Alaskans, working Americans spending their money because they believe in the future. But here we are about to have a political debate, and I understand there is a lot of swapping and trading going on, and we are having to debate today, and who knows what is going to happen next week on other legislation. To be very frank with you, I think that is not the way this should operate. We should vote on this based on the merits, the merits of the 95-plus percent of the business community that will benefit from the million-and-under program, the 98 percent of the middle class who will benefit--that is whom we should be talking about. When you look at the data points in regard to the consumer confidence, we are now in the third month and running of increasing consumer confidence. Thirty retail chains talk about their record increases in sales. Again, the people who are shopping at these places, people such as myself, my family, my brothers and sisters, many Alaskans--that is what this is about. It is not a question of how long to extend these things; it is who will benefit from the right public policy discussion and decisions. Small business folks benefit. I understand the other side doesn't like the $250,000 and under, so a lot of us on this side, moderates, said: Well, why not try something a little different? Let's up it a little bit; let's get to the $1 million threshold because it covers basically everybody except the millionaire and billionaire club. That seemed reasonable. I have yet to see any compromise from the other side. That is also what the election told us. It wasn't one side won, one side lost. The people in this country, the people in Alaska are telling me every day: Get busy, solve problems, compromise, and move forward. The compromise should be not on how long these go but who benefits. My view, again, I am going to support both of these. I think the compromise that has been laid out on the $1 million and under will make a big difference to our business community. So that argument I keep hearing from the other side--and I will tell you this from the other side--I am a small businessperson. I know who these people are. So when you talk about it and talk about an economist says this or that, I have worked in it, I live it, I see it. So I understand what they are asking me to do. Going with that compromise is the right decision in the long term. I encourage my friends that we can reach a compromise here and get to help our small business community, the middle class, and put money in to reduce the deficit--to reduce the deficit. Help our economy, reduce the deficit, I would say that is a pretty good deal, and that is what the taxpayers and the voters told us in this last election. To my friends on the other side, we are reaching out. They may not like the $250,000, but the $1 million and under is a positive step to help our communities. Again, why would we give millionaires and billionaires $300 billion in another bonus? It makes no sense to me. They are not the ones driving this economy, despite what my friends on the other side might say. It is the people who are the small business community, it is the people who work every single day, who are working today while we sit here and deliberate this issue, who will be working tonight and tomorrow and Monday. For us to sit around and say: Let's wait until Monday to sit down and have compromise--today is the day, right now; this is what we are doing. I yield the floor.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wasn't planning to actually come to the floor this morning, but as we prepare for the day, sometimes we watch those who make comments and reflect on what was talked about yesterday and what we discussed and what we see on the floor. I have this new attitude that as I see people put information on the floor that has to have a balance to it, I am going to come out and give that balance when I can. The biggest one is on the economy. I sat here yesterday and heard some folks on the other side complaining that it took us a week to deal with the food safety law, and they wondered why. Well, it is because the other side continues to require filibusters for 30 hours. I know the Presiding Officer has been working aggressively on this to try to figure out a way to get things on this floor more quickly so we can have a debate. But what shocked me is, they complained that it took a week when, in fact, their delay tactics caused the week delay. So they wonder why. They create the problem and then they complain about the problem. The bigger issue is on the economy. The Presiding Officer and I came here 2 years ago. We came and were sworn in, in this Chamber, in January of 2009. This economy was collapsing. It was a disaster. It did not matter if you were from Alaska or New Mexico; wherever you went, you heard the stories about the problems with the economy and where we were headed. It was incumbent upon us to do as many things as possible to assist the economy to grow, to figure out the pathway. Not all ideas we laid on the table that passed were perfect, but they were multiple and multifaceted, to figure out what to do. The converse is, the other side just kept saying no, no, no. They weren't interested in doing anything to move this economy forward. We were in a crisis moment. When we think about issues and we look back--and always at the time we are making decisions and we are hoping for the best and we are trying everything possible--it is helpful to remind ourselves where we were. It didn't matter, again, as I said, if you were from Alaska or New Mexico, the economic condition of this country and this world was at risk. So we made some moves that were controversial, and today many of us don't like to talk about them because the pollsters will tell us: That is bad news; don't talk about it. The public hates it. Maybe it is the TARP or the bailout or the stimulus. Figure out the list. Every day I read Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, CNBC. I look at all the business publications online and in print. What I like to see is not what politicians are saying about how the economy is going but what other people are saying--the people who actually work every single day to try to build this economy. I can speak to this. Meaning no disrespect--I know the Presiding Officer is an attorney. I mean no disrespect to the attorneys who are here. We have lots of them in the Senate. I am from the private sector. My first business license was at the age of 14. My wife owns four retail stores. We are businesspeople. We understand what it takes to go to the bank and try to scratch a loan from them to build a business, expand a business. We understand when a banker says no, so we have to go raise capital from other folks to try to make our dreams come true. There are a lot of people who come to this floor on the other side who talk a lot about business who have never been in it, who have never had to make a payroll. They have worked their way through another means of income. So it is frustrating to me when I hear people who have never been in it come out on this floor and talk about the business world. Let me give some data points. I will probably do this more often than I should over the next several months because the American people have heard the story from the other side over and over. I was no big fan of the auto bailout--a lot of us weren't--but 10 days ago, a little blip in the news: GM had the largest initial public offering in stock market history. The first day they estimated that about $17 billion would be subscribed to it. Then it was $20 billion. The latest news is $23 billion. The American people put their money on the table and bet on GM: $23 billion. Unbelievable. Actually, what truly shocked me was when I grabbed--and I get it every day, I read it, and I think there are incredible news stories. It is not a liberal newspaper--the Wall Street Journal. It has very conservative views on a lot of things. But their headline: ``GM Stock Sale in High Gear. Government-backed carmakers on pace to score one of the largest U.S. IPOs ever.'' The government owned 61 percent then. With this IPO, it is now down to about 26 percent. It clearly shows, even though it was controversial and still is controversial, even though no one wants to talk about it, that investment to save an American company in order for it to sustain American jobs in this country is succeeding. It is not because I am saying it. It is not because the Presiding Officer might say it or the other side now wants to take some credit, which is amazing--I love some of the quotes I read. When this first was kicked around, they called it socialism, the world was collapsing, the sky was falling. Now you read the quotes from some of the folks on the other side and they say: Well, with our help, we made it a better deal. They didn't vote for anything to make it a better deal. That is just a fact. The fact is, we took the risk to make an American company survive. That is what we did on this side of the aisle. Today, that company is more profitable than ever before. When you look at the data, the private sector is successful and the American people are investing in that company. That is the true test of the work we did--even though it was controversial--what the outcome was. As I sit here in the last couple of days, I am going to read a couple more data points. Again, it is not me saying this or writing these issues; it is the private sector that is identifying where we are going in this economy. Later this week, we will get a report--on Friday. I heard today in some of the comments that we should let the private sector do as much as it can. I 100 percent agree. I come from the private sector. Many on the other side talk about it, but they have never been there. The private sector added 93,000 jobs last month. When you look at another one, the number I like to look at is consumer confidence. When consumers are more confident about the economy, they will spend more money, drive our economy, and invest in their country. Interestingly, ``Consumer, Manufacturing Reports Beat Forecasts.'' That came out yesterday. Again, it is another indicator that the economy is moving in the right direction. It is still rough and fragile, and the policies are controversial, yes, but we took the risk and bet on the American people. That is what the Democrats did. We said that we believe in America, our ingenuity, innovation, and the capacity to pull us out of this recession. We are going to help them with some tools. They are making it happen. I can tell you this from my wife being in the retail business. Black Friday--the Friday after Thanksgiving--is what retailers focus on when moving into the fourth quarter. Is it going to be successful? If you look at all the reports compared to a year ago, retailers have strong momentum coming out of Black Friday. Everyone did very well. That is another good indication. As a matter of fact, one encouraging sign--and this is out of another business document. CNBC did this. It comes from the NPD Group, figuring out where consumers are after Black Friday and other shopping days. Shoppers are starting to buy items for themselves. In addition to gifts for others, about 35 percent of shoppers told NPD on Black Friday that they also made purchases for themselves. If shoppers are starting to splurge on themselves, that is an important development. It can push the holiday season past the forecasts. I am not making this up. This is what is happening because, again, this side of the aisle said: We are going to bet on the American people. We are going to bet that the work we did in early 2009, trying everything possible to jump-start this economy, is going to have a payoff down the road because we are going to focus on the private sector, helping them get the tools they need, just as we did before the August break in passing the small business incentive program and tax incentives and loan capacity. We only received two votes from the other side for that. So be it. We go the road alone. The net result for the last 2 years is that--I have been here for 2 years, and the occupant of the chair has been on the other side for a decade or so. But we came here to get work done. It may be controversial at times. Leadership is not easy. It is not just saying we are going to do that because everybody loves it. Sometimes the tough decisions are the ones the public has the hardest time with in the worst situations--the recession. We made some decisions--again not perfect--but the results are slowly and surely coming true. The economy is moving in the right direction. Every time I hear from the other side that the private sector needs to do more--absolutely. As a matter of fact, the largest companies have more cash in their bank accounts today than they have had in decades because they have done well in the last few years in preparing for the new growth that is occurring right now in our economy. I didn't plan to come down here. I was getting prepared for a Commerce Committee hearing. The occupant of the chair and I are both on that committee. Anybody who suggests we are not focused on this economy or on job creation or figuring out how to make sure the middle-class taxpayers of this country get a fair shake and make sure they have a tax break coming forward and continuing forward--those who say we are not focused on that are mistaken. I learned this when I was a mayor: We can do more than one thing at a time. The reason I came down to talk is that nobody was talking. It is a dead zone. That is what happens. When they come down here and say: Gee, I wish we would be working on this or that--well, quit filibustering and doing the 30-hour delays and get on with the work. We are multitasking. The American people have asked us to work on jobs, the economy, taxes, and the budget. We are 100 people, and we can do this. Anybody who sits around and thinks we are not focused on the economy-- as someone who lived in the private sector, comes from it, who deals with small businesspeople every single day, I understand exactly what they are feeling. So those who have never experienced that should experience it once and understand that every day is an opportunity. I am going to continue to come down here and talk about the positive news, the opportunities that are occurring from the work we have done in the last 2 years. The other side may complain or argue over was it right or wrong. The proof will be in the pudding in the fact that other people--not politicians jawboning about it--in the private sector are telling us. We have had some good news over the last several months. The last point I will leave on is another bit of good news. It was small business again. They do an indicator and try to determine the confidence level of a small businessperson. That is important because the small business community is the largest driver of new employment now and in the future. So you want to make sure their confidence level is high. Well, in the last 5 months, it has increased every single month. I believe it is because of actions we have done here to give them faith that we believe in them, in the American people, and we believe the ability to move this economy forward is ahead of us, and we are doing it today. Again, I will continue to come down here with data points and articles--not out of liberal magazines or publications. I heard earlier today about some liberal agenda. I don't know what that is about. I know what the American agenda is. I know what Alaska's agenda is. That is what I am here to do. If we just get off of these partisan kinds of activities and focus on what is right, we can get a lot done around this place. So I will continue to come down here and talk about the positive aspects of what is going on in the economy. Believe in the future and have an attitude of being positive about what we can do, and it is amazing what this country and this economy can do. Mr. President, I appreciate the time I have had to discuss this issue. I warned my staff as I left--I said: Turn on the TV. I didn't tell them why I was coming here. They will ask me when I get back what I was doing. I will come down and talk about the positive aspects of this economy and will no longer listen to the other side naysay with negative attitudes. We have an economy that is improving--fragile but improving in the right direction because we on this side bet on the American people. I believe we bet right. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. I appreciate the opportunity to rant for a little bit and yield the floor.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, still having the floor, let me respond. First off, I want to make sure, as the public is watching this, what that means. Keeping the tax rates where they are means millionaires and billionaires continue to get a bonus because that is what it is, with no disrespect to my colleague on the other side. I mean, corporations, businesses today--and I can speak about this, again with no disrespect to my colleague, as someone in the small business world. Our family is in this business. My wife owns four retail stores, started from scratch, just as I did in many of my businesses. The small business community--the small business community--benefits not by the people over the 2 percent, the top 2 percent; the small business community are the ones below that. Half of the businesses in this country, the small businesses, gross less than $25,000. That is a fact. So for us to just kind of continue business as usual and keep these tax rates where they are for the millionaire and billionaire club--that didn't help us the last 3 years. The fact is, right now they have those tax breaks. Right today, they have those. They had them last year. They had them the year before. And what happened to this economy? It crashed and burned almost to the ground. What has happened to the millionaire and billionaire club? They have more money in their bank accounts today than ever before. That is not me saying it; that is other independent data out there. Corporations have more cash on hand today than they have had in decades. So for us now to say: Hey, let's give the millionaires and billionaires another bonus for the next year for running our economy into the ground doesn't make any sense to me and doesn't make sense to the people back home in my State, the Alaskans I talk to every single day. As a matter of fact, when I came here in January of 2009, we were in our fourth or fifth month, if I remember right, of losing 500,000 to 700,000 jobs a month. Do you know what that is equal to? That is the total population of my State every single month being lost. People who are saying we have to make sure the millionaires and billionaires have this $700 billion bonus, paid for by the taxpayers of this country, to drive us more into debt, and believe that is going to solve this economic problem is absolutely wrong. I have had to scratch nickles and dimes together to build businesses. I have done it before. I have succeeded and failed. That is not what grows business, giving millionaires and billionaires breaks. What makes a difference, for example, is the small business bill we passed, where we only got two votes on the other side, a small business bill that brought money to loan small businesses. That is what makes a difference, or extending the tax credit, which we did, not only during the recovery bill, the stimulus bill, which I know everyone on the other side hates, but also during our small business bill so people can buy equipment and depreciate it in the first year, write it off in the first year. That is of real benefit to small businesses. Extending the SBA loan program, expanding it from the limitations they had before to $5 million to make sure that the front-end fees do not have to be charged, what did that do in my State? It tripled--tripled--the loan capacity of SBA to small businesses. That was supported on this side. You want to grow small business. That is how you do it, because the way it has worked, we drove into the biggest recession since the Great Depression. So I respect the comments on the other side, but for us to say to the American taxpayers: Hey, we are going to give another $700 billion to millionaires and billionaires, is beyond comprehension--beyond comprehension, especially when we tell them: Oh, by the way, it is going to be debt financed. So my son, who is 8 today, and his kids, my grandkids, maybe, in the future, will still be paying that bill because we were told that by Monday we have to make a decision. I am not doing that. I didn't come here to play those games, to swap off the START treaty or national security for the benefit of millionaires and billionaires. The other thing I have learned about this place, we can multitask. I came down here this morning, no one was on the Senate floor. I go to committee meetings--there is supposed to be 15, 25 people--2 people show up, maybe 4. I don't know what other people are doing. I am showing up because that is what I was sent here to do by the people of my State, to come here and work. For us to sit around and say we can only do one thing at a time--I talk to families every single day. They are doing multiple things every day, every single day. Why we can't, with all the staff we have, all the abilities we have, focus on more than one thing is ridiculous. Again, no disrespect to the Senator from Tennessee. I mean him no ill words. I am frustrated. I didn't come here for these kinds of games. We put a 1099 amendment on the Food Safety Act. People are asking: What are we doing? I heard yesterday, why did we spend a week on the food safety bill. The other side wanted to delay it because it was good politics for them to delay and drag it out. So here we are. We have a deadline. We have to get this passed or we are going home. If you don't want to be around here, then go home. But the fact is, the American people sent us here, Alaskans sent me here to not just do one issue but to do multiple issues. That is what our country is about. It is complex. There is no single issue that drives the economy. But giving millionaires and billionaires a $700 billion tax bonus is ridiculous. I appreciate the comments. I am sorry my colleague objected to this one item because in order to build this economy, we have to have multiple things in play. This gives more tools to the private sector to grow their neighborhoods and businesses.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, thank you very much. Earlier today I spoke on the Senate floor and talked about how the economy is fragile but going in the right direction and how many of us on this side of the aisle--as a matter of fact, all of us on this side of the aisle--took a lonely road over the last 2 years on some controversial issues that the public sees as controversial, but we knew we had to do something--something--to get this economy moving, and we are now seeing the benefits. Every time I open--I do not care if it is the Wall Street Journal, Business Week--you name the business magazine or newspaper--which are not the liberal magazines; they are very conservative magazines and newspapers, or on the Internet--they will show you statistic after statistic that we are moving in the right direction. For this last month, I think it is 92,000 new jobs the private sector created. But in order to do it, we need to do some more. I am a little frustrated by the letter. I also have a unanimous consent request that I hope to be able to bring up on HUBZones and to amend the Small Business Act. It is the idea of rebuilding local small businesses. What amazes me about this letter is it seems as though for some reason we can only do one thing at a time in this place. Now, I come from local government where, as a mayor, we had to do multiple tasks because we always had many of them on the table. It did not matter whether it was public safety or creating jobs or rebuilding a neighborhood or working with the community, we had to do multiple things. This country has multiple issues in front of it. We have an important START treaty that needs to be done. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. Our national security is at risk, but for some reason the other side wants to wait until we give--I am not even going to call it a tax cut. I call it a bonus for the millionaires and billionaires. It is a bonus. It is not a tax cut. It is a bonus they want to give, $700 billion of money we do not have. We cannot afford it. The working class of this country cannot afford it. The middle class cannot afford it. My son cannot afford it. My son's future kids cannot afford it--$700 billion of more debt to give a bonus to the people who drove our economy into the ditch. I do not really get it. It seemed as though when I came here there was going to be a logical thought process, great debate. Once again, we are down here. Nothing on the other side. They will come out. I know they will have their charts and one-liners about how the economy will fall if we do not give millionaires and billionaires another tax break or bonus. It is not going to. We are on the road to recovery because this side took that lonely road when people told us: Wow, that is politically going to hurt you, and it did. We lost some people this last election. But leadership is not about taking the easy road, the easy answer, the simple solution. We are in a very complex time with many issues facing us internationally and nationally--economic, energy, world issues. We have to be able to juggle those all and move them forward. The public demands it of us. So this ultimatum, or whatever it is, this letter that they wrote just shows the classic tactic they have used the last 2 years. I mentioned this morning, and I will mention again, that I read in one of the political news stories yesterday that someone on the other side, one of the Senators from the other side, one of my colleagues, said: I can't believe it took us a week--a week--to do food safety. Neither can I. But it was not anyone on this side of the equation. Over there, they demanded us to have two 30-hour periods to debate food safety that ended up passing with over three-quarters of the body supporting it. Why? Because it is a good bill. But they wanted to delay it so we don't get to the main issues. Again, Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I want to give it. We thought they would be down here at 3:30. We thought they would be down here at 3:45. Now it is 4 o'clock. They told us to get busy. We are trying to get busy by doing some unanimous consent requests on job creation. But I will just tell you, it is important for us to recognize what their goal is here: delay, delay, not helping the American people, and basically giving bonuses to millionaires and billionaires, which is unreal. I see my colleague from New York wants to jump in, so I am going to yield for my colleague from New York. Again, I am hopeful there will be Members on the other side so we can get on with propounding unanimous- consent requests to get the Senate moving. I yield the floor.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent I wish to do, but before I do that, I want to say that I know the Senator from Wyoming is not here right now, but I want to echo the point that we are going to deal with the 1099s. It is a question of making sure we pay for it the right way. I do not think anyone in this body--we are motivated and I think a lot of us are working in a bipartisan way to resolve that issue. As someone who has been in the small business world since the age of 14, who has had a business license since that age, I have aggressively talked about the issue of small business, I have lived small business, and I clearly understand what the 1099 is all about. I talked about this issue back in July and made it clear that we need to deal with it and get rid of it. So we are going to be working on it. We will see this, hopefully, as part of the tax package, a tax extender package, and we will deal with it. I come to the floor because I also have a unanimous consent I would like to do in regard to small business. This is a bill that will help what they call HUBZones, HUB areas that are high unemployment to the tune of 140 percent of the average adjusted unemployment rate. These have been very helpful for many different communities across this country as well as in our State. This is the Rebuilding Local Business Act of 2010. It amends the Small Business Act and designates HUBZones and gives them another 3 years of opportunity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Small Business Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3563 and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH

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

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. I thank the Senator. Unless this bipartisan bill becomes law, many small businesses for which identity theft is not a threat could be required to spend time and effort to comply with the red flags rule implementing the FACT Act. This could require them to take time away from growing their businesses and creating jobs. Small businesses are the economic driver of our country, and in a time of high unemployment and stagnant economic growth, businesses should be focused on job creation, and should not have to spend the money to comply with regulatory burdens disproportionate to the scope of the identity theft problem. This bill would address what the chairman of the FTC, Jon Leibowitz, called ``the unintended consequences of the legislation establishing the red flags rule.'' While this list isn't exclusive, many small businesses such as doctor's and dentist's offices, pharmacies, veterinary clinics, accounting offices, and other types of health care providers and other service providers were classified as ``creditors'' because they sometimes let clients pay after they provide their services. This legislation makes clear that these small businesses should not be swept under the red flags rule in the future just because they allow payment to be deferred, when they don't offer or maintain accounts that pose a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft. I would ask the chairman of the Banking Committee if he agrees with my description of what the Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010 will accomplish?

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I congratulate Dr. Ping-Tung Chang, the recipient of the U.S. Outstanding Community Colleges Professor of the Year Award. This award is recognized as one of the most prestigious honors bestowed upon a professor, and this is the second time Professor Chang has won a Professor of the Year award. To be nominated for this award requires dedication to the art of education and excellence in every aspect of the profession. Professor Chang should be proud of this accomplishment as he has been personally vested in each student and has helped shape the leaders of tomorrow. In his 24 years at Matanuska-Susitna College, Professor Chang has taught mathematics to nearly 6,000 students and has successfully established a scholarship fund for students. Professor Chang has used innovative methods to get students excited about mathematics and problem solving. I commend him for his leadership and passion for educating. Professor Chang, I wish you the very best in all your endeavors. Congratulations and best regards.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Space Available Equity Act. Members and retirees of the National Guard and Reserve, their families, and surviving military spouses make great sacrifices for our Nation. However, too often these individuals do not receive the benefits they have earned for their service. For instance, members of the reserve components and ``gray area'' retirees, National Guardsmen or Reservists eligible for retirement but under the age of 60, have limited space-available travel privileges on Department of Defense aircraft under current regulation. Their space- available travel benefits are restricted to the continental United States and are not extended to their dependents, unlike active duty members and retirees. Surviving spouses of a military member eligible for retired pay retain no space-available travel privileges at all after the death of their spouse, despite having made a lifetime commitment to the military or in many cases, lost their loved one in war. To correct these inequities, I am introducing the National Guard, Reserve, Gray Area Retiree, and Surviving Spouse Space-available Travel Equity Act. This bill will give these deserving individuals comprehensive and equitable space-available travel privileges on Department of Defense aircraft. The bill is endorsed by the National Guard Association of the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving parity to our reserve component members and surviving military spouses. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill to provide medically separated servicemembers and their family continued access to commissaries and exchanges. Unfortunately, these individuals lose many benefits upon their honorable discharge from the military for disabilities and injuries which prevent them continuing service. These servicemembers have served their country dutifully. They have earned the right to retain commissary and exchange privileges after being honorably discharged for disabilities that prevent further service and may preclude certain types of employment thus hindering their ability to provide for their families. My legislation will give commissary and exchange privileges to individuals medically separated from the military to ease economic hardships faced after their discharge. Additionally, by granting commissary and exchange privileges to these Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines they will be able to stay connected to their military communities. This legislation is supported by the National Guard Association of the United States. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to honor and recognize the sacrifices of our disabled servicemembers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, the score is 10 to 0. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I have to say to the Senator from Rhode Island, we will get some of that water that fizzes because we will need it as the night goes on. The point is simple. To the American people, to the Alaskans who are watching, this process we go through here, which is really about getting us to a bill--that is what we are trying to do so we can have a debate across the aisle, have a discussion about what is the right policy when it comes to jobs and how to make sure we do the right thing regarding our economy. Instead of having to debate, they would rather stop the motion to proceed and end the story. I rise this evening for the same reason many other folks are talking tonight--in support of the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. I believe we should reward companies that keep Americans working here in our country. As a former mayor, and really longer than any time I have served in public office, as a small business owner--that is what I spent my life around. I understand the impact of legislation and what it means for a business owner. As I have said in the Budget Committee and on the floor, I am probably one of the few who have filled out--in one of the debates we had a couple weeks ago--1099 forms. I understand what it means for a small businessperson to spend the time to try to build their business and what it means. Tonight, in my view, it is unacceptable that we currently reward companies that ship American jobs overseas while businesses that are doing their best to provide decent wages and benefits are struggling just to make payroll. We should reward businesses that don't just keep but create jobs here at home. It makes no sense to me, when you think about it--you have business A and business B both doing the same product. But the one that decides to invest in America, to invest in Alaska, who competes against the person across the street who decides to close up and go overseas, who gets tax breaks and special benefits and subsidies and other things, the person here who is working hard every day to keep Americans working is at a disadvantage. It is clearly time that we stop shipping our jobs overseas and make it right here in America. American manufacturing jobs have been some of the hardest hit by the economic downturn. States that have significant manufacturing bases are those with the highest unemployment rates. This legislation is a commonsense response to our job crisis. Under the bill, payroll tax relief will be rewarded to companies that hire employees domestically during a 3-year period, beginning now. The tax cut would come in the form of relieving the companies of paying Social Security payroll taxes on each job that was brought back home to this country for the next 2 years. This legislation also eliminates tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas. I will repeat that because people who might be watching are saying: What do you mean, we give companies tax breaks for moving jobs to another country and not reward people who work here? That is the case. We actually give breaks, which include deducting expenses for companies that close their factories in the United States and move them overseas. I don't know about all other taxpayers, but I am taxpayer and a businessperson, and that seems ridiculous that we would give a tax break to companies that ship jobs overseas. Taxpayers subsidize these companies. As I mentioned, our tax laws currently reward these companies in many different ways for moving jobs overseas. Here is a startling reality--the data. We hear a lot from the other side, and they are kind of good sound bites and they get on the news and get coverage, but here is the data. This is how people should measure the success or failure of the policy we have had regarding this issue. That is why we need to pass this new legislation. Between February 2001 and February of 2009, almost 4.7 million manufacturing jobs were lost to overseas operations--4.7 million American jobs that were shipped overseas, like a parcel package. They are gone. Between 1999 and 2008, employment of foreign affiliates of American parent corporations grew from 7.8 million jobs to 10.1 million. That is an increase of 2.4 million jobs or 30 percent. Again, there are jobs that have been shipped off, and then these American companies then produce jobs overseas that could have been produced here in this country. But they have not done it. To my friends across the aisle, many of you seem to have the impression that extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will mean more jobs. I just got back from a weekend in Alaska, for 2\1/2\ days moving through cities, talking with folks. I have to be honest. Only the people across the aisle are thinking that because that is not what I hear back home. They see through it. The 97 percent who will receive a tax break, a tax cut, middle-class Americans see that benefit. But the small 3 percent, 2.5 percent, they are not going to create jobs with that money, no question about it. As we all remember back in the Bush administration, President Bush decided to extend these tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans in the middle of the Iraq war. The thought was this would spur our economy and create new jobs. Not surprisingly, the exact opposite happened. The national debt doubled. When President Obama was sworn into office, just before he was sworn in, over half a million jobs were lost just in that month alone before he was sworn in. We have to stop shipping jobs overseas and make it right in America. I implore my colleagues on the other side to allow the debate, to allow us to proceed. It is not complicated. I will end on this comment and say, when I was a mayor, anybody could bring any idea to the table. You could debate it. Sometimes we debated until midnight, sometimes we started the next day and debated some more, but ideas were debated. We are recovering from an economic crisis. We are, at the moment, to look at some new options, new opportunities to have our businesses thrive and move forward. I ask our colleagues on the other side: Allow the debate to occur. As a small businessperson, as a Member of the Senate, I ask them to step to the table and let us move forward. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about legislation I am introducing today with support from my fellow senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski. It is all too rare that we get to talk about successful partnerships between private industry and the Federal Government. This legislation would cement just such a successful partnership between a subsidiary of an Alaska Native Corporation, Doyon Limited and the National Park Service. Briefly this measure would authorize a special use permit and over the longer term an equal value land trade to facilitate a micro-hydro project within the non-wilderness portion of the Denali National Park. The micro-hydro project would allow Kantishna Roadhouse, a backcountry lodge that accommodates thousands of visitors a year, to substantially reduce their diesel use. Because the lodge is not connected to any utility grid, it must generate its own power. By converting much of the load to a renewable resource, the lodge would improve local air quality and reduce truck traffic on the single park access road, thus improving the experience for visitors to the lodge and park as a whole. It additionally would help the lodge's bottom line. The legislation has been developed with the assistance of Alaska Region of the National Park Service, and they are supportive of the project. Eureka Creek, the source of the hydro power, is not a fish- bearing stream, and the Park Service is interested in acquiring the lands to be traded from Doyon ownership. After a good deal of outreach this summer by Doyon and others, we are aware of no opposition to this permit, land trade and the legislation itself. I want to thank the National Park Service for their willingness to come to the table and work constructively to solve problems. Additionally, I particularly want to thank the senior senator from Alaska and her staff for their work on this legislation. It's been a good partnership and I appreciate her help.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about legislation I am introducing today with support from my fellow senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski. It is all too rare that we get to talk about successful partnerships between private industry and the Federal Government. This legislation would cement just such a successful partnership between a subsidiary of an Alaska Native Corporation, Doyon Limited and the National Park Service. Briefly this measure would authorize a special use permit and over the longer term an equal value land trade to facilitate a micro-hydro project within the non-wilderness portion of the Denali National Park. The micro-hydro project would allow Kantishna Roadhouse, a backcountry lodge that accommodates thousands of visitors a year, to substantially reduce their diesel use. Because the lodge is not connected to any utility grid, it must generate its own power. By converting much of the load to a renewable resource, the lodge would improve local air quality and reduce truck traffic on the single park access road, thus improving the experience for visitors to the lodge and park as a whole. It additionally would help the lodge's bottom line. The legislation has been developed with the assistance of Alaska Region of the National Park Service, and they are supportive of the project. Eureka Creek, the source of the hydro power, is not a fish- bearing stream, and the Park Service is interested in acquiring the lands to be traded from Doyon ownership. After a good deal of outreach this summer by Doyon and others, we are aware of no opposition to this permit, land trade and the legislation itself. I want to thank the National Park Service for their willingness to come to the table and work constructively to solve problems. Additionally, I particularly want to thank the senior senator from Alaska and her staff for their work on this legislation. It's been a good partnership and I appreciate her help.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I would like to add to the heartfelt sentiments we have heard expressed by many colleagues and many more around the country over these past several weeks in paying tribute to our departed colleague, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. As an American, pondering what Senator Byrd has done, the history he has been a part of, and the path he took from the small towns of southern West Virginia's coalfields, is inspiring. From the perspective of a new Senator, I must say that the life and career of Senator Byrd is more than a little daunting. I have served just shy of 20 months, and I have voted in this Chamber slightly more than 600 times. Those numbers seem like rounding errors compared to the numbers we have heard over the last several days in reference to the service of Senator Byrd: Elected to nine full terms, more than 51 years in the Senate--more than 4 years longer than the next longest serving Senator; he cast nearly 19,000 votes, 18,689, including 4,705 consecutive votes; he was twice majority leader; served also as Whip, conference secretary, minority leader, and President pro tempore; and he served on the Appropriations Committee continuously since being placed there in 1959 by then-majority leader Lyndon Johnson as a freshman in this body--more than 3 years before I was born and only about 2 weeks after Alaska became a State. I am told by colleagues who served longer with Senator Byrd that while he was proud of those facts, the record he cherished the most was the time he spent with the love of his life, his childhood sweetheart and wife of 68 years, Erma. Senator Byrd was a man of deep faith, but from what I have heard of them as a couple, I do not doubt that all the glories of the afterlife pale for Senator Byrd compared to rejoining Erma. I came to the Senate too late to hear most of his greatest speeches, but when he spoke, whether it was about a funding bill or the wars that we continue to wage, you listened. We all felt a great sadness when Senator Kennedy died last year, but many of us probably came to appreciate the depth of the historical significance of his departure from this body months earlier when we heard and saw another of the great legislators in American history, Robert C. Byrd, weep openly and unabashedly as he paid tribute to his friend and colleague. My service with Senator Byrd was nowhere as lengthy as his with Senator Kennedy, but I am profoundly affected by the honor of knowing the man, even for these past 2 years. In the short time we did serve together, I have still been able to learn from Senator Byrd. He was a statesman and a pillar of this institution, and a genuine historical figure that my son Jacob will learn about in school. But the thing that I will take from watching Senator Byrd that showed every day that we served together was that nothing was more important than the work he did for the people of the State that sent him here. All of us look to the people of our States for guidance on the matters of the day, and certainly Senator Byrd was attuned to the thoughts of the people of West Virginia. But there was more to it than just knowing what the people of his State thought. His whole career was about making West Virginia a better place, expanding its infrastructure, educating its people, supporting its industries, and providing the circumstances in which economic development could take root and flourish. Improving the lives of the people of his State was what motivated Senator Byrd to come here almost 19,000 times for votes on any number of issues. As I think of the impact Senator Byrd's career has had on West Virginia, I cannot help but think of the similarities between our two States. Alaska and West Virginia are both mostly rural, energy- producing States with pockets of intractable poverty. It is a mark of respect for his success at changing the world for the better that West Virginia has fewer poverty-stricken residents, and that remote regions of his state are less difficult to travel to and from than when Senator Byrd was first elected to Congress. He was an ardent supporter of the Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC, which was created to help solve the problems of poverty and hopelessness in his State by upgrading insufficient public infrastructure, building and maintaining educational facilities, and providing access to public and private sector assistance to improve health care, foster economic development and diversity, and provide opportunities for the people of the region beyond energy extraction and the few other traditional industries that existed there. It is no surprise that when my predecessor, Senator Ted Stevens, was looking for a way to improve the lives of Alaskans, he saw in the ARC that his close friend and colleague, Senator Byrd, had worked so hard to support a model for the Denali Commission that he believed could create similar hope and opportunity in our State. My colleagues and I in the Alaska congressional delegation today are just as dedicated to the potential the Denali Commission represents for our State. We can only hope to have as much positive impact on the lives of Alaskans as Senator Byrd had with those of the West Virginians he was so proud to represent. I do not have as many great stories about Senator Byrd as many of our other colleagues, but I will close with observations about the man, hard at work doing what he knew was right for his people, which inspired me. As the Senate worked to reform the Nation's health care system last year, a number of votes were late at night or early in the morning, and as many will remember, the weather last December was uncharacteristically cold and snowy. As an Alaskan and a relatively young man, getting to the Capitol during a blizzard was not a big ordeal. Watching Senator Byrd, in his nineties and in obvious frail health, make his way to the Senate Chamber time and time again in his wheelchair, including for a final vote very early on the morning of Christmas Eve, was an inspiration. Seeing it then, and reflecting on it in the last several days, made me appreciate more fully the man's dedication to the people he served. Every State deserves Senators with those motivations, and while I will always marvel at the man's encyclopedic knowledge of the Senate and countless other things, the thing I will emulate about the life and career of Robert C. Byrd, for however long the voters of Alaska choose to have me as their Senator, is that my job is to make the lives of Alaskans better. I believe Senator Byrd would approve.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. By any objective standard, Elena Kagan offers a well-rounded combination of academic legal expertise and real world application of law and public policy. The President has nominated Ms. Kagan to a job she may hold for three decades or more, and in which she will have the opportunity to touch the lives of Americans in countless ways. So just being an intelligent and hard-working public servant is not enough for this vital position. That is why I have taken my time and my responsibility seriously, to thoroughly review her record before deciding to support her. Decisions by the Supreme Court have immediate impacts on the lives of everyday Americans when the rulings are handed down. These decisions may continue to play a role in the lives of Americans for generations. Considering my vote on a Supreme Court nominee, a task I will perform soon for the second time in my brief Senate career, is a duty I take very seriously. I approach this decision from the perspective of a government chief executive. It is the constitutional role of the President to nominate Supreme Court justices. In the case of a nominee to the Federal courts, especially to the Supreme Court, this choice is not about a President's ability to carry out a stated agenda. Rather, justices on the highest court in the land are there to protect and interpret the Constitution, so the highest standards must be applied. In my meeting with Solicitor General Kagan, I found her to be intelligent and engaging, and open to hearing my thoughts on what is important to Alaskans. I listened as Ms. Kagan described the way she approached legal issues, and heard from her an approach to the law and the Constitution that indicated she will not be an activist judge. I agree with my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Lindsay Graham, who said the job of a senator is not to second guess the President's judgment in selecting Supreme Court nominees, but to determine if the candidate is qualified, of good character and understands the difference between being a judge and a politician. Ms. Kagan is such a person. For me as an Alaskan, there were some issues I needed to make front and center in our discussion, especially the rights we enjoy and which the Supreme Court has recently spoken to under the second amendment of the Constitution. Alaskans take their second amendment rights very seriously. In a State where the daily life for many includes subsistence hunting, personal protection and basic survival, our right to keep and bear arms is not an academic question. It is a fundamental part of our lives. The State of Alaska has gone so far as to pass laws requiring firearms be kept in survival gear carried in private airplanes. Unlike much of the ``Lower 48,'' the wilderness in Alaska is reachable within minutes from even our largest cities. Even in the greater Anchorage area encounters with wildlife are commonplace and serious injuries occur regularly. That is why firearm ownership and use in Alaska transcends the debates in Washington over what the second amendment means. Much of the opposition to Ms. Kagan's nomination has focused on what some charged was her alleged lack of support for second amendment rights. Some oppose Ms. Kagan's nomination because she worked for Justice Thurgood Marshall and President Bill Clinton. When she was asked by Judiciary Chairman Leahy if, after the Supreme Court's decisions in Heller and McDonald that the second amendment secures an individual's fundamental right to own a firearm and use it for self- defense, Ms. Kagan's response could not have been more clear: ``There is no doubt, Senator Leahy. That is binding precedent and entitled to all respect to binding precedent in any case. That is settled law.'' Instead of second-guessing or making assumptions about her views, I am taking Ms. Kagen at her word. Even before the Court's decision in McDonald applied the reasoning of Heller beyond the District of Columbia, Ms. Kagan was clear about the fundamental nature of the rights protected by the Second Amendment. During her confirmation hearing to be Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan responded to a question about the meaning of Heller from Senator Grassley: ``There is no question, after Heller, that the second amendment guarantees Americans the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.''' In subsequent questioning, Ms. Kagan responded regarding Heller that she would give that decision and its reasoning ``the full measure of respect that is due to all constitutional decisions of the Court.'' What Elena Kagan said about the second amendment, especially in light of the Heller and McDonald decisions that I supported, cannot be considered anti-gun, or anti-second smendment. In our meeting, I also asked Ms. Kagan about unique status of Alaska Native people and issues. I pointed out that Alaska is home to nearly half the 562 federal recognized tribes in the United States and that Alaska Natives comprise nearly 20 percent of our State's population. Ms. Kagan admitted to being no expert in ``Indian law,'' but expressed a willingness to learn about the challenges and opportunities facing Alaska Native people. She also expressed support for encouraging the courts to adopt procedures making it easier for people whose first language may not be English to understand court proceedings. Another significant issue for Alaskans is the Supreme Court's decision in the Exxon Valdez case. Thousands of Alaskans were damaged by that oil spill, yet Exxon took every possible advantage in the U.S. court system to delay payment of damages as long as they could. As a result, an estimated 20 percent of those damaged by the spill died before they could collect any compensation. Ms. Kagan agreed with the tragedy of that case and expressed frustration with it dragging on so long. Mr. President, because of what I have learned in looking at the career and record of Ms. Kagan, and reviewing her statements and testimony on matters that are important to the people of Alaska I am privileged to serve, I am pleased to confirm Elena Kagan as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to address issues of great concern to me and to all who care about public safety in Alaska Native villages. Last week President Obama signed the Tribal Law and Order bill into law. That legislation passed because Congress recognized the great need to provide more support for the criminal justice system and communities in Indian Country. While this law has some important provisions that will benefit Alaska Native communities, I believe the remoteness and other unique conditions of many Native villages in my State compel us to do more. That is why I am introducing the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2010. My bill will establish a demonstration project for Alaska Native tribes to allow tribes in Alaska to set up tribal courts, establish tribal ordinances, and to impose sanctions on those people who violate the ordinances. It would enhance current tribal authority, while maintaining the State's primary role and responsibility in criminal matters. Additionally, those communities selected to be part of the demonstration project would be eligible for an Alaska Village Peace Officer grant to serve those communities in a holistic manner. Unfortunately, because of the vastness of Alaska, too many of our Alaska Native villages lack any law enforcement. Too often, minor cases involving alcohol and domestic abuse go unreported because the nearest State Trooper resides in a hub community, located a long and expensive airplane ride away. Frequently, harsh weather prevents the Troopers from flying into a community even when the most heinous acts have occurred. Approximately 71 villages have a sole unarmed Village Patrol Safety officer, VPSO, who must be on duty 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. These hard-working VPSOs are underpaid, and while communities try to provide some housing and heating assistance, in places where fuel oil can cost as much as $8 a gallon, it can be difficult to sustain the funding for these public servants. As one who believes strongly in community involvement, I strongly believe tribes in Alaska should have a role in their law enforcement needs. This local control not only provides security for the communities, but also encourages local acceptance of the judicial system as a whole. With the changes in place that my bill would require, residents of Alaska Native villages will see a system that does more than just fly in after a tragedy has occurred. Just recently communities in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta have experienced an alarming suicide cluster. Unfortunately Alaska Native communities have grown accustomed to alarming suicide rates, but in the past two months there have been at least nine self-inflicted deaths in these villages. Nick Tucker, an elder in Emmonak, recently wrote a letter to the State of Alaska's rural affairs director to try to bring attention to the issue. Part of his letter begged for the Governor to call the legislature in session and said it is no longer acceptable for them to wait for the Troopers because ``in the villages, they take forever.'' Part of this continuing suicide cycle is the presence of drugs and alcohol. Predators do not fear police action when they bootleg alcohol or sell drugs in villages, because there is no police presence. One can walk into a village, speak with an elder and that person will tell you who is bootlegging alcohol. These communities are full of rich heritage and culture, however many have high unemployment due to the remoteness and lack of opportunity in the village. Most economic development in Alaska happens in either the metropolitan areas, or in very remote areas for resource extraction. Many of the villages have unemployment rates above 20 percent. Alaska Natives survival is highly dependent on the land. They subsist on game, berries, and fish. However, as hunting and fishing stocks dwindle many people are feeling disconnected from their heritage and have turned to drugs and alcohol. Too many people in the villages feel isolated and lack a connection, both figuratively and literally. Though educational attainment in the last 40 years has increased dramatically, the dropout rate in Alaska still hovers at 40 percent. Too many of our young men and women have lost hope and are losing a sense of community. We must give our communities the tools necessary to protect themselves. Too often, we pour resources into urban areas, but become stuck when we try to work toward solutions for our most remote communities. We should no longer allow the answer from anyone to be ``we don't have the resources.'' Alaska Native villages are vibrant, strong communities and we should do everything in our power to work with these communities and answer their calls for help. I encourage my colleagues to join me on this legislation, and ask for the full Senate to consider and pass it to provide help to some of the places in our country most in need.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to address issues of great concern to me and to all who care about public safety in Alaska Native villages. Last week President Obama signed the Tribal Law and Order bill into law. That legislation passed because Congress recognized the great need to provide more support for the criminal justice system and communities in Indian Country. While this law has some important provisions that will benefit Alaska Native communities, I believe the remoteness and other unique conditions of many Native villages in my State compel us to do more. That is why I am introducing the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2010. My bill will establish a demonstration project for Alaska Native tribes to allow tribes in Alaska to set up tribal courts, establish tribal ordinances, and to impose sanctions on those people who violate the ordinances. It would enhance current tribal authority, while maintaining the State's primary role and responsibility in criminal matters. Additionally, those communities selected to be part of the demonstration project would be eligible for an Alaska Village Peace Officer grant to serve those communities in a holistic manner. Unfortunately, because of the vastness of Alaska, too many of our Alaska Native villages lack any law enforcement. Too often, minor cases involving alcohol and domestic abuse go unreported because the nearest State Trooper resides in a hub community, located a long and expensive airplane ride away. Frequently, harsh weather prevents the Troopers from flying into a community even when the most heinous acts have occurred. Approximately 71 villages have a sole unarmed Village Patrol Safety officer, VPSO, who must be on duty 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. These hard-working VPSOs are underpaid, and while communities try to provide some housing and heating assistance, in places where fuel oil can cost as much as $8 a gallon, it can be difficult to sustain the funding for these public servants. As one who believes strongly in community involvement, I strongly believe tribes in Alaska should have a role in their law enforcement needs. This local control not only provides security for the communities, but also encourages local acceptance of the judicial system as a whole. With the changes in place that my bill would require, residents of Alaska Native villages will see a system that does more than just fly in after a tragedy has occurred. Just recently communities in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta have experienced an alarming suicide cluster. Unfortunately Alaska Native communities have grown accustomed to alarming suicide rates, but in the past two months there have been at least nine self-inflicted deaths in these villages. Nick Tucker, an elder in Emmonak, recently wrote a letter to the State of Alaska's rural affairs director to try to bring attention to the issue. Part of his letter begged for the Governor to call the legislature in session and said it is no longer acceptable for them to wait for the Troopers because ``in the villages, they take forever.'' Part of this continuing suicide cycle is the presence of drugs and alcohol. Predators do not fear police action when they bootleg alcohol or sell drugs in villages, because there is no police presence. One can walk into a village, speak with an elder and that person will tell you who is bootlegging alcohol. These communities are full of rich heritage and culture, however many have high unemployment due to the remoteness and lack of opportunity in the village. Most economic development in Alaska happens in either the metropolitan areas, or in very remote areas for resource extraction. Many of the villages have unemployment rates above 20 percent. Alaska Natives survival is highly dependent on the land. They subsist on game, berries, and fish. However, as hunting and fishing stocks dwindle many people are feeling disconnected from their heritage and have turned to drugs and alcohol. Too many people in the villages feel isolated and lack a connection, both figuratively and literally. Though educational attainment in the last 40 years has increased dramatically, the dropout rate in Alaska still hovers at 40 percent. Too many of our young men and women have lost hope and are losing a sense of community. We must give our communities the tools necessary to protect themselves. Too often, we pour resources into urban areas, but become stuck when we try to work toward solutions for our most remote communities. We should no longer allow the answer from anyone to be ``we don't have the resources.'' Alaska Native villages are vibrant, strong communities and we should do everything in our power to work with these communities and answer their calls for help. I encourage my colleagues to join me on this legislation, and ask for the full Senate to consider and pass it to provide help to some of the places in our country most in need.

Mr. BEGICH

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

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise to honor four members of Alaska's military family who lost their lives in a tragic airplane accident in Anchorage last week. MAJ Michael Freyholtz and MAJ Aaron Malone were pilots assigned to the Alaska Air National Guard's 249th Airlift Squadron. CAPT Jeffrey Hill was a pilot assigned to Elmendorf Air Force Base's 517th Airlift Squadron. And SMSgt Thomas Cicardo was a loadmaster with the Alaska Air National Guard's 249th Airlift Squadron. Last Wednesday evening, these airmen were honing their skills in a C- 17 aircraft when it went down in the woods not far from downtown Anchorage. Every Alaskan has been touched by this loss. It is a terrible tragedy for our State, where we consider Alaska's military installations extensions of our communities. Service members are part of our extended Alaskan family. Today in a large Elmendorf airplane hangar, thousands of Alaskans are gathering to mourn the loss of these brave airmen. Each of the airmen who perished on July 28th played a pivotal role in standing up C-17 operations and training in Alaska. They contributed to our Nation's defense and to the State of Alaska. Major Malone was a C-17 pilot on leave from Alaska Airlines, his place of employment, to help stand up the 249th Airlift Squadron in Alaska. Alaska was Major Malone's home State. In 2008, he transferred to the Alaska National Guard. As a highly regarded airman, he became a C-17 instructor pilot. He proudly served his country for more than 12 years in the Air National Guard. During his time of service, Major Malone flew the F-16 in defense of our airspace after 9/11, deployed to the Korean Peninsula, and flew missions in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. MAJ Michael Freyholtz was a member of the Alaska Air National Guard since 2007, when he left active duty. During his time of service, he flew more than 600 hours of combat service in support of Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. He was recognized for his distinction as a pilot; he was awarded the Air Medal for his service. Originally from Minnesota, Major Freyholtz was the first non-Alaskan pilot to help stand up the 249th Airlift Squadron. A C-17 pilot since obtaining his wings from the Air Force in 2000 and a superior airman, he most recently flew with the Air Force Thunderbirds. According to his loved ones, CAPT Jeffrey Hill cherished being a part of Alaska's 3rd Wing, to which he was assigned in 2007. With his humor and positive attitude, he was an inspiration to his fellow airmen in the 517th Airlift Squadron as the Operations Flight commander and instructor in the tactical airlift mission. He encouraged his fellow airmen to stay fit. He was a mentor to his fellow comrades. A fitness buff and an outdoorsman, Captain Hill took advantage of all Alaska had to offer--hunting, fishing, camping and hiking. With over 28 years in the Armed Forces, SMSgt Thomas Cicardo was handpicked to be part of the initial personnel to stand up the 249th Airlift Squadron. He was a highly decorated combat veteran with more than 30 awards and decorations. His hometown was Anchorage, and he contributed greatly to the State of Alaska with his service. Sergeant Cicardo was a home-grown hero. During the 11 years he spent in search and rescue, he is credited with saving more than 66 lives in Alaska. Helping to stand up the 249th Airlift Squadron, SMSgt Cicado formulated training and evaluation functions in the squadron. Due to his efforts, the squadron received an outstanding rating during the last inspection. Every Alaskan is deeply saddened by the loss of these airmen. They are sons, they are fathers, and they are brothers. Today, I very much wanted to be with the families of these brave Alaskans in person. I am honored to offer my tribute and condolences to them and Alaska's entire military community on the floor of the Senate. I ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of silence in honor of the memories of Major Freyholtz, Major Malone, Captain Hill, and Senior Master Sergeant Cicardo. Let us pay tribute to their selfless service and sacrifice to our Nation and to Alaska. (Moment of silence.) Their service to our country and service in Alaska as Arctic Warriors will always be remembered. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.