Mark Begich

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. The Senator and I have the same situation he has described: Yes, we are getting those calls and they are not just-- people say this is a union thing. No, it is union, nonunion, chamber, environmentalists, neighborhoods, community councils. It is everybody you can imagine because these are real jobs, about real people, about real communities. Over there I think they think it is some theory that if they delay it, nothing will happen. They are wrong because the Senator and I have lived on that other side and had to live with the consequences of inaction. This is one of those bills where there is bipartisan support, all the groups out there from all walks of life support it, and everyday people understand it. When I was back in Anchorage getting some gas at the gas station, someone came up and they asked me, because why? We are about to start our season in the bidding process because you have to take 30, 60, 90 days to get the bids out and then you actually have to construct. I think sometimes in the House they think it is some fantasy land that whatever they do has no effect. This does. I think the Senator said it very clearly, and I appreciate being allowed to ask a few questions and comment here. But it seems the most ridiculous thing to have Alaskans telling me every day to work together, create bipartisan legislation, whatever it might be. Here is one we have done successfully and now we are ready. But over there they are playing politics. They have now tried twice to do something this week and they still cannot get it moving. I would encourage those on the other side to move forward on the bipartisan bill that the Senate has passed when I know they were banking we would not pass it. We did it; we did our work. The American people are waiting for these jobs, the contractor community is ready, and the communities are ready. It is time to move forward. I thank the Senator and the Presiding Officer for allowing me to ask a few questions and give a little commentary.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, just as I expected, we have been in this back-and-forth show-and-tell on oil and gas issues instead of spending the time and working on a real energy plan, one that is important for not only my State, my colleague's State, but for the whole Nation. So we go back and forth, and it is politics as usual in this Chamber. We just heard a nice presentation by my colleague from Wyoming about how it is all the President's fault the prices are going up and all these other issues. Let me just say this--and I know my friend from Louisiana knows this--in Alaska, there is a clear indication what we believe when it comes to energy prices. We have communities that pay $9, $10 a gallon for heating fuel. We understand when costs go up what happens to our economies in our rural communities. We also are a producer of oil and gas, and we understand the potential and job opportunities. But this last week, when we started on this bill, I know my colleague and I were just two of four people who said, no; we are not moving on this bill because we expected exactly what is going on now. We are just doing a little show-and-tell, having a little argument back and forth, and in another 24 hours or maybe 30 hours we will be off this bill and we will not have an energy plan. When I go back home for our break, when I am talking to Alaskans--and I know the Senator will be talking to folks in Louisiana--they will complain about gas prices and heating costs and how much it costs to fill their cars or their RVs if they are trying to go somewhere on the weekends, and we have not done anything to make a dramatic change. Of course, this idea of eliminating these incentives for the oil and gas industry I have opposed from day one, for a variety of reasons. One, if we are going to do real tax reform, then we should do a broader sweep, and no industry should be left off the table. Everyone should be part of the equation. I have heard this from the industry--I know my colleague has heard this from the industry--that they are willing to be part of the bigger picture, but do not single them out because poll numbers say they are a demon of some sort or people do not like them. Let's talk about real tax reform. That is one debate. The other debate is, if we really want an energy plan, then let's really do one. Let's focus on opportunities, and let's quit putting out pieces that one side puts down because it sounds good for their brochure, and then the other side puts one down. Let's really focus on something that will make a huge difference to this economy. As I mentioned, in Alaska fuel is expensive in our rural communities for heating, and communities in Fairbanks, which is a very urban area, can pay upwards in the winter of $1,000 or maybe more per month in heating costs, making their ability to survive very difficult. As we work on these energy projects and what is important, let me put another thing in perspective from Alaska. People think in Alaska all we care about is oil and gas. Well, we do. It adds a lot of jobs. But we also care about renewable energy. I know I have been on the floor of the Senate talking about that. My colleague has been on the floor talking about renewable, alternative energy. It is all part of the equation, how to ensure we develop a plan. We diversify our energy resources, and then we deliver it for the betterment of this country and economically in order for us to survive. In Alaska, for example, as we work on our oil and gas development, we are also moving forward on renewable energy. In our State, just about 25 percent of our energy production for use in the State is renewable energy, with the goal to be at 50 percent by 2025. We have a plan because we understand the value of it. I want to show a chart I have in the Chamber, and then I know my colleague has comments, and we will probably go back and forth a little bit. But I want to show you this one chart. When I came into office--and my colleague over here talked about ANWR. I support ANWR. I am aggressive about it beyond belief. My colleague has been. Before I got here, she was pounding away on this issue also. It is important. We have four regions in Alaska that are of high value. When we talk about oil and gas in Alaska, at least from our office, we talk about everything that is possible. We talk about ANWR. We talk about the National Petroleum Reserve which--let me make that point--is designed for petroleum production. We have the Chukchi Sea over here, and the Beaufort Sea over there. These four regions have huge value to the oil production of this country. When we talk about this, where are we today? What can it do? What can it replace? It can replace countries such as Libya and Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, where we get oil from. We could actually produce it here, and the good news is we are on the path to do that. Now, has it been long and tedious? Yes, it has. But are we moving in the right direction? Yes. We have seen for the first time in 30 years the opportunity to develop in the Arctic that we have not seen before. We are seeing for the first time--this summer, Shell is moving their ships up to the Chukchi Sea because the potential between the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea alone is 24 billion barrels of oil. Let me repeat that. I know we deal with these numbers in our two States: billions, billions. When we look at the Chukchi Sea, 15.4 billion barrels of oil; plus a little side product, gas, and we love gas because it is clean burning, 77 trillion cubic feet; the Beaufort Sea, 8.2 billion barrels of oil--this is what we know best today in our estimates--where they are doing exploration now, so we are going to find out more opportunities--gas, 28 trillion cubic feet. NPR-A, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, 1 billion barrels of oil is what we know of, and they are in production this year. ConocoPhillips will be developing in what they call CD5. ANWR is still a struggle, but 10.4 billion barrels of oil. It is still an important piece, where a small, little component of this would be developed, 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres. That would be the footprint we would utilize. But the point I am trying to make is, if we want to get on to a real energy plan, then let's do that. I know the folks on our side did their vote. It was amazing. It shocked me, actually, that they voted to move forward. They had not done that ever since I had been here on that bill. It is because they wanted to do show-and-tell for a week, get some press, and beat up the President because of Presidential politics. I have my differences with the President. We fought him a lot on these issues. But what I am interested in, what I came here for--and I know the Senator came years ago for--is to do a real energy plan that involves our country being more self-sufficient on our own energy resources, and let's do it the right way. Let's have the real debate that will make the difference for consumers. So when I go home, and my colleague goes home, and someone says thank you because we have set in motion a trend that will lower or stabilize gas prices for our homes, for our cars, for our businesses, for transportation in general, that is what we should be doing. But instead we are going to burn up a few days here and make a lot of speeches, and then we will move on. Well, I will tell you, and I think my colleague will agree with me on this, that the two of us are not going to stop. We are going to talk about an energy plan because that is what we need in this country if we want to grow this economy and make ourselves more self-sufficient and more secure nationally. What is happening in the Middle East? The price is going up. It is not anything we are doing. But we have some good news. Even though it is predominately private land that has been the growth factor of oil and gas, we are seeing more domestic production for the first time in 10 years. I do not know, but to the Senator from Louisiana, I think that is a good thing; right?

Mr. BEGICH. Well, I think the Senator said it in the question in a way. It is a lot of Presidential politics. I think what I hear when I go home is--and the Senator probably hears it too--that people are frustrated with that activity. Think about this: Just a couple of weeks ago, we passed a bipartisan transportation bill. Unbelievable. People say we cannot do things together. Seventy-four votes moved a bill, with very diverse views, as we all know. But we worked it out. We spent 5 weeks doing it after all the committees' months and months of work. And what did we end up with? A great product that went over to the House, that now sits there languishing and not having anything happen to it. What is interesting, if we do not do a good energy plan, here is what happens: asphalt, which is a petroleum-based product which builds those roads, only goes up. When that goes up, that means now the roads we want to build become less. It is not complicated. Why are they not doing this--I think even some of their own Members were surprised that they had to be told by their leadership to change their votes and do a certain type of vote. Now we are in this no-end product. In other words, we are not going to end up with anything. I do not get it. I know they will go home just like the Senator and I, and they will hear the same thing: jobs, gas prices, and construction and the housing market, what is happening? These are things we hear about. I am surprised.

Mr. BEGICH. If I can make a comment that the Senator just christened one of our new ships coming up. It has Icebreaker capacity to work for Shell to do what? Go right here.

Mr. BEGICH. Well, absolutely. As a matter of fact, as we know, this line--this is the pipeline that brings resources from here down to Valdez and ships it throughout the country and the world. It is about 10 percent of the oil for our country that comes from Prudhoe Bay up here. What is amazing about this development is, as it moves forward, it will obviously provide even more. Also, as the Senator said, with the map there, it is about jobs. I mean, when we think about this development, this could be upwards of 54,000-plus jobs estimated by an independent research arm. Plus these jobs pay very well: on an average, $117,000 a year. I do not know about you; I think that is a good-paying job.

Mr. BEGICH. Some of those ships will be refurbished and some of the work that is being done is out of the Port of Seattle and Tacoma and that region. It is a nationwide aspect. Think about this. In 2011, the oil and gas industry produced 9 percent of the new jobs in this country. Let me repeat that: Nine percent of all of the new jobs in this country came from the oil and gas industry. It is the fastest growing industry at producing jobs.

Mr. BEGICH. If I could add, in this Chukchi/Beaufort, for example, it is estimated that the cumulative state, local, Federal value over the next 50 years in terms of revenue stream is upwards of $100 billion. If we then talk about the payroll over the next 50 years for the same two areas, it is $150 billion. What happens to that $150 billion that people get paid? Exactly. They buy a house. They maybe put their kids through college or they are vacationing or they are improving their lifestyle. They are moving up, and that kind of money is significant. It has a multiplier effect that is hard to measure, but it is real. Anybody seeing somebody making $117,000, they are spending that money in the economy. That is why we see the job growth we see here. Again, to the principal debate we are having tonight--and we are the minority of the minority in a way--we need to get back to the basic issue of what do we want in this country in a diversified, well-delivered energy plan. We can get there. For example, we had a bill, and the other side threw down the same old talking points a few weeks ago--to drill everywhere one could imagine. It is about drilling but doing it responsibly, in the right areas, with the right design. They had Bristol Bay, the fish basket of the country, where 40 percent of the fish are caught. They want to drill there. I cannot vote for that. It is a balanced approach that we need.

Mr. BEGICH. If I can, I will add one more point before we finish. If these incentives are so bad, then why are we at a 10-year high in production? Why do we see in Alaska more independence than ever before? Probably in the Senator's State I venture to guess--I remember Anadarko, a very small company, which is now a very big one. We can look at these different companies and part of the incentives are utilized to take hard-to-get areas and make them more profitable so they can produce them. The result is that we now have more gas, for example, than we have ever had, and the price dropped so far that people are excited about it, which happens--if we talk to the petrochemical industry, they love these low prices because they are producing more opportunities in this country to produce products we used to produce overseas. So there is a ripple effect. People say these are bad incentives. Actually, we are producing more. They are paying one of the highest tax rates, as the Senator said. So we are getting money back on our investment. They are high prices because we don't have a comprehensive energy plan to have diversified energy portfolio and make sure we deliver it everywhere we can. It is not complicated.

Mr. BEGICH. Absolutely. I will tell the Senator we have been exporting for 40 years. We have been doing that because of our ability to do so and being able to get to the Pacific Asian market. Overall, the State here--through all its natural resources, we are a net positive in our export trade. We help lower the trade deficit for a variety of reasons--our fish, minerals, gas, and natural resources. So we are a huge contributor to this economy in a lot of ways. I have been here only 3 years, and I still wake every day being hopeful. I am hopeful that at some point we will debate and have a real energy plan discussion. When we do that, the net result is that Americans will win, consumers will win, and national security will win. Everything wins if we have a good dependable energy policy that looks not only at today but down the road. I think my friend from Louisiana made a very good point about conservation, about those issues. Thinking about the automobile industry, we came to their rescue and we got a lot of criticism--all of us, the President included--but what is the result? Those folks paid back their loans, and they are more innovative than ever before. But they are also producing more fuel-efficient cars, which saves fuel, and it saves on the long-term dependency on foreign products. Some people say that is not conservation; that was a bailout. It is a combo. It is multifaceted. For whatever reason, the other side sees that as just another government thing. I cannot remember, but it was a pretty good interest rate we got on that money and they paid it back and now they are being more innovative. Most recently, our automobile industry is building more natural gas fuel vehicles. They want to move forward in that area. I don't know if that will be successful, but they are moving forward because the price is lower. We have a lot of it, and that is an industry that is stronger than ever before. As we sit talking about the importance of energy and how we have to develop our plan and have a diversified plan of action from all sources, as the Senator went through the list of the subsidies, we do it in every arena. We are trying to create a diversified energy portfolio for economic security, and it also creates innovation. We cannot depend on one type of fuel source. It is all part of it. People who say it can just be oil and gas are in another world. We have to have a multifaceted approach and then we have to do it and deliver it for the benefit of the American people. There is a way to do that. Again, I struggled tonight because of the vote I took yesterday--one of four--that said we are not moving forward because I saw what was going to happen. By this weekend, I will be home talking to Alaskans and sharing their concerns about high energy costs in small villages and urban areas, and they will be asking the question: What are we doing? I wish I could say here is the answer and the price will go down. For the 3 years I have been here--and the Senator from Louisiana has been here longer--we have had a debate with no real substantive beef. People have put something out on the table, and the other side votes against it, instead of having a meaningful, real comprehensive energy bill. We have tax incentives here and there but not something that says this is what are going to do, so 20 years from now, all of us, including my colleague from Louisiana and my colleague from Colorado, can look at our kids and grandkids and say we did the right thing because we are stronger because we diversified our energy resources. That is the fundamental issue we will not get to. We are in our own debate because we are a group of four. Two of them are out tonight. The rest are in a different debate.

Mr. BEGICH. I thank my friend from Louisiana, and I will conclude by saying again that her point about being smart and strategic is what we are saying. No one is saying either/or, that it has to be this or that. It is a combination of things. Some will be more expensive today but maybe less later. Think about the technology around the cell phone the first time it came out, which used to be a box about this big, and you plugged it in your car and the big receiver would be in your trunk. It cost several thousand dollars to buy that technology, if you remember, and people were saying: No one is ever going to do that. Now you can go to the 7- Eleven--or in my State it would be the Holiday store--and buy throwaway phones. It is amazing what can happen when you allow some expansion of this knowledge and technology. Oil and gas bring new technology. The Senator mentioned directional drilling, for example, which is new technology being developed in our State and her State to bring opportunities that Shell gas is now doing--all kinds of opportunities. When you think of the security level, I know the Senator from Colorado, our Presiding Officer here, has been in the Armed Services Committee, where we talk about this all the time. How do we get the biggest consumer--the military--to find new alternatives? And they are experimenting. But what is amazing--and we heard it last week and the week before-- is that our friends on the other side are wondering why the military is looking at alternative fuels. They actually asked, what gives you the authority to do that? Well, actually, when it costs you almost $400 a gallon for diesel fuel on the front lines of Afghanistan, I think that is a good reason. They should be looking at what kinds of alternatives they can use. I have seen what they are doing. They are doing some amazing things with solar panels and small devices. And what is important about that for the military is they can move more rapidly through areas so they won't have to worry about where is the diesel truck for energy. But for rural Alaska, it is important in our rural villages where it is $10 or $11 a gallon for heating fuel, and now there is technology that, instead of taking up a whole room, is portable, and they can move it, they can use it, and it saves consumers. So there are all kinds of things we should be doing. I know the other side will say: Those things cost too much; these things cost too much. When you are at the R&D stage, things always cost too much because you have to move slowly to develop and create the markets. But the military is a huge driver of a market, so I am excited that they are in these areas. And I oppose the idea of some Republican Senators and House Members who are saying they shouldn't be doing anything experimental. Absolutely, they should. They are a consumer of the product. Let's have them give us some innovation. People may forget that the same people who were doing the energy development in the early 1960s are the ones who started the Internet, from which we all now benefit. Imagine in the 1960s if we had said to the military: Oh, we don't want you testing whatever they were calling that Internet system. That is bad. You get out of that business. Where would we be today? Now, as the parent of a 9-year-old, I might have a different view on this. I may not want my son on the Internet. But it made a difference in our economy and everything else that is going on. To conclude, I would say we have a chance to develop, to diversify, and to deliver a real energy plan if we focus on it. That is what we should be doing. So I thank my colleague from Louisiana, and I thank the Senator from Colorado, who is our Presiding Officer tonight, for allowing us to have a little rant time here in our own world. But I think the world we talk about is the same world almost everyone in America is living in, with high gas prices and wanting real solutions. Anyone who says there is a magic bullet and the price will go down-- that isn't happening. I support the Keystone Pipeline, and I know my colleague from Louisiana supports that, but that won't lower prices tomorrow. I support, for a variety of reasons, a long-term plan--jobs and other things--but it won't lower prices tomorrow. Drilling in Chukchi and Beaufort is important to me. I think in the long term it will create jobs and it will lower gas prices but not tomorrow. But these are the kinds of things we should be doing. Will our investing in conservation to ensure that our commercial buildings and houses are more efficient turn a dollar right away? A little bit. But over the long haul--I am doing an energy retrofit to my house in Anchorage. I am going to save some money. It will go in and go out because I have to put some money aside for my son's education. But I will have more money. So it pays over time. Nothing happens overnight. It drives me crazy when I hear the other side say that this is like magic and tomorrow things will change. I wish that were the case. We all do. But we have to have a plan to get there. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for joining me tonight. I thank her for standing tall when we took our vote yesterday. I think we made our point, and now we need to move forward, and hopefully we can get other people to follow our lead and do a comprehensive plan.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the recognition of Croatia by the United States. On April 7, 1992, the United States recognized the Republic of Croatia, setting the stage for our two nations to build lasting U.S. Republic of Croatia bilateral relations. Today, we remember all of the people who are responsible for creating a democratic and free Croatian state and celebrate the enormous achievements since independence. Twenty years ago, the people of Croatia had the willpower and endurance to fight for a democratic nation. Filled with the hopes and dreams of a prosperous, new sovereign state, the struggle was not an easy one. Independence never comes easily. Each country can attest in their own history to the enormous sacrifices and the period of unstable, unclear direction their nation was headed. However, we must not forget those who persisted with their self-determination dreams. We can now look back with immense pride in the founding of a country that has accomplished so much in so little time. After years of war and occupation, Croatia has made remarkable political progress since the end of the war more than 15 years ago. Croatia is a welcomed member of NATO and will soon become the 28th member of the European Union, EU. At the end of 2011, Croatia completed the negotiation process of EU accession, another milestone accomplished. Both of these landmarks came with enormous challenge, and I salute your achievement. There will be challenges on the road to this new future as there have been in the past, but I am confidant Croatia will face and overcome them. Croatia is in a position to play a positive and leading role in assisting countries in the region in their efforts at Euro-Atlantic integration. With the ambitious goal in mind of implementing objectives, which are in line with the highest standards of good governance and partnership, I am optimistic Croatia will lend her expertise to her neighbors. Joining the EU and NATO, with their shared values of democracy, human rights, and rule of law, is perhaps the best way to ensure security and prosperity in the region. I use this opportunity to state how proud I am of my heritage. As the only Member of the Senate of Croatian decent, I am deeply honored to commemorate and celebrate the remarkable successes of Croatia. I am equally grateful to be witnessing such a pivotal moment in the many advances of our two nations and to highlight the extraordinary cooperation between the United States and Croatia. Our relationship is one to be admired. Fifteen years ago, Croatia was a security consumer, with United Nations peacekeeping troops deployed throughout the country. It is now a security provider, with 481 troops deployed across the globe, including in Kosovo, the Golan Heights, Afghanistan, Western Sahara, India-Pakistan, Haiti, Lebanon, East Timor, and in counterpiracy operations in the Gulf of Aden. They even had staff officers assigned to NATO operations in Libya, a major accomplishment as we have seen history unfold in Libya just this past year. Croatia contributed to our efforts, and together, we have accomplished much. Croatia's troop commitment in Afghanistan--350 is one of the highest per capita contributions in the International Security and Assistance Force there. Croatia has taken the lead in establishing a military police training center in Afghanistan, to which other members in the region also contribute trainers. This cooperation alone, in far away Afghanistan, involving countries that not long ago were embroiled in a vicious war, brings a certain stability to the region of the former Yugoslavia and creates a unique opportunity. In our joint efforts to combat global terrorism, the United States and Croatia have important tasks left ahead. We are continuously working with Croatia today to create a great, lasting partnership. Cooperating with our southeastern ally has proved to be positive, with enormous payoffs for both countries. Together, our nations continue to work on all issues, including security, trade, business, development, and diplomacy. I want to reiterate my highest commemoration of Croatia's accomplishments in recent years of our history and express my sincerest appreciation for Croatia's determination in achieving the highest standard of diplomacy with our Nation. It is my hope to see even more increase in our exchanges, dialog, and joint bipartisan efforts between our two countries, with many more opportunities for cooperation in the future.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about legislation I am introducing today aimed at providing a better understanding of the Arctic Ocean and its resources. A changing climate is radically reshaping this part of the world. This change brings challenges and opportunities. As you may recall, nearly 3 years ago, I delivered my first speech to this body on the changing Arctic and what our Nation needs to do in order to prepare for it. That work continues today. Retreating sea ice is leading to dramatic increases in shipping traffic of both goods and tourists. Our Nation's energy needs demand we investigate and responsibly produce the massive amounts of oil and gas found in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. These resources are now available due to retreating sea ice, the state of technology and the price of oil. Meanwhile, Native Alaskans have depended on and thrived for thousands of years because of the living resources of the Arctic Ocean. In order to manage this change, we need a better understanding of the Arctic Ocean, and the legislation I am introducing today provides a firm foundation for that work. It establishes a new coherent research strategy to gather baseline information and to provide a holistic look at the Arctic Ocean. Importantly, it doesn't create any new bureaucracy. It assigns this task to the North Pacific Research Board, a well regarded institution, and requires a high degree of coordination with other existing entities, including the Arctic Research Commission whose job it is to establish Arctic research priorities and coordinate the massive federal investment in this area across many agencies. I would argue that most people are unaware of just how much Arctic science and research is underway. For most people in the lower 48 States, it is out-of-sight and out-of-mind. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has spent about half of its total research budget on the Arctic for the past 6 years, approximately $60 million. The National Science Foundation has spent more. However, the Arctic Ocean Research, Monitoring, and Observing Act will be important to provide funds not tied to particular projects. This legislation is intended to provide a firm foundation in our understanding of the basic science of the Arctic Ocean that can underlie all of our decision-making in the Arctic. I am always happy to inform my colleagues about how we do things right in Alaska. We're a natural resource development state. Because our economy is so dependent on that development, we bear the responsibility of doing it right. That is making sure that nonrenewable resource development doesn't harm the renewable resources of our great state. I am confident we can continue to do that as we explore and develop the approximately 26 billion barrels of oil and 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. However, we have to make prudent investments in order to meet that goal, and that is what I am suggesting we do today. With companion legislation I will be introducing in the next few days, I also have a plan to create an endowment to fund this critical research program. Baseline science and monitoring requires steady, dependable funding in order to have the long term data sets that can help us make good decisions. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration on this important need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about legislation I am introducing today aimed at providing a better understanding of the Arctic Ocean and its resources. A changing climate is radically reshaping this part of the world. This change brings challenges and opportunities. As you may recall, nearly 3 years ago, I delivered my first speech to this body on the changing Arctic and what our Nation needs to do in order to prepare for it. That work continues today. Retreating sea ice is leading to dramatic increases in shipping traffic of both goods and tourists. Our Nation's energy needs demand we investigate and responsibly produce the massive amounts of oil and gas found in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. These resources are now available due to retreating sea ice, the state of technology and the price of oil. Meanwhile, Native Alaskans have depended on and thrived for thousands of years because of the living resources of the Arctic Ocean. In order to manage this change, we need a better understanding of the Arctic Ocean, and the legislation I am introducing today provides a firm foundation for that work. It establishes a new coherent research strategy to gather baseline information and to provide a holistic look at the Arctic Ocean. Importantly, it doesn't create any new bureaucracy. It assigns this task to the North Pacific Research Board, a well regarded institution, and requires a high degree of coordination with other existing entities, including the Arctic Research Commission whose job it is to establish Arctic research priorities and coordinate the massive federal investment in this area across many agencies. I would argue that most people are unaware of just how much Arctic science and research is underway. For most people in the lower 48 States, it is out-of-sight and out-of-mind. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has spent about half of its total research budget on the Arctic for the past 6 years, approximately $60 million. The National Science Foundation has spent more. However, the Arctic Ocean Research, Monitoring, and Observing Act will be important to provide funds not tied to particular projects. This legislation is intended to provide a firm foundation in our understanding of the basic science of the Arctic Ocean that can underlie all of our decision-making in the Arctic. I am always happy to inform my colleagues about how we do things right in Alaska. We're a natural resource development state. Because our economy is so dependent on that development, we bear the responsibility of doing it right. That is making sure that nonrenewable resource development doesn't harm the renewable resources of our great state. I am confident we can continue to do that as we explore and develop the approximately 26 billion barrels of oil and 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. However, we have to make prudent investments in order to meet that goal, and that is what I am suggesting we do today. With companion legislation I will be introducing in the next few days, I also have a plan to create an endowment to fund this critical research program. Baseline science and monitoring requires steady, dependable funding in order to have the long term data sets that can help us make good decisions. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration on this important need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 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. President, I rise today to recognize a great civil rights leader in Alaska and to join all Alaskans in celebrating Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. Almost 25 years ago, the Alaska State legislature designated today as Elizabeth Peratrovich Day to commemorate the signing of the Alaska Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945, and to honor Ms. Peratrovich. Elizabeth Peratrovich is a Tlingit Alaska Native who fought for equal rights for all Alaskans long before her now famous address to the Alaska legislature. She was grand president of the Alaska Native Sisterhood and fought against the very public discrimination taking place against the first people of Alaska. In many places in southeast Alaska just 60 years ago, public signs read: No Dogs, No Natives or Filipinos. Others simply said: No Natives Allowed. There were separate drinking fountains and separate doors in public buildings. As Tlingits, the Peratrovichs could only purchase property in Native neighborhoods, could only be seated in segregated portions of the theater, and could only send their children to missionary schools-- not the public schools for which they paid a school tax. In the face of this discrimination, Ms. Peratrovich demonstrated courage in her convictions--a courage which changed the course of civil rights treatment for Alaska Natives. In 1941, Elizabeth and her husband Roy wrote a joint letter to Territorial Governor Ernest Gruening about their concerns. In part, they wrote: My attention has been called to a business establishment . . . which has a sign on the door which reads, ``No Natives Allowed.'' In view of the present emergency when unity is being stressed, don't you think that it is very un-American? We have always contended that we are entitled to every benefit that is accorded our so-called White Brothers. We pay the required taxes, taxes in some instances that we feel are unjust, such as the School tax. Our Native people pay the school tax each year to educate the White Children, yet they try to exclude our children from these schools. Although antidiscrimination legislation had been floating around the territorial legislature for years, it had not gained any traction. Again, I want you to put your mind in this time. This was the 1940s. Many legislators believed Alaskan Natives were second-class citizens. Despite the fact they paid taxes and bore arms in defense of this Nation, they were not endowed with the same rights as others. In 1945, however, hope emerged. Antidiscrimination legislation had passed the Alaska statehouse but was stalled in the State senate. One senator made a speech stating that Natives had only recently emerged from savagery and were not fit for society. He argued that they had not had the experience of 5,000 years of civilization. With great courage and composure and poise, Elizabeth Peratrovich confronted the senator who had just belittled her and her people. Not only was she a Native addressing the mostly White Alaskan audience, she was also the first woman ever to address the Alaska State senate. In a quiet, steady, but bold voice, Elizabeth Peratrovich opened her testimony with the following words: I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind the gentlemen with 5,000 years of recorded civilization behind them, of our Bill of Rights. She then recounted her experiences with discrimination--how she and her husband had not been allowed to lease a house in a White neighborhood; how she was prohibited from enrolling her children in the same schools as everyone else, the schools for which she paid a school tax. She talked about the embarrassment her children felt when they were not allowed to sit with their friends in the theater. Following Elizabeth Peratrovich's speech, the senate exploded in applause. Her plea had been effective. The opposition that had been so absolute shrank to a mere whisper. On February 8, 1945--again, I underline the date, thinking of our national history--on February 8, 1945, a bill to end discrimination in Alaska passed the senate by a vote of 11 to 5. Elizabeth Peratrovich had been instrumental in making Alaska the first organized government under the U.S. flag to condemn discrimination. Today in Alaska we celebrate Elizabeth Peratrovich Day and affirm our beliefs in equality. With each passing year we move closer to truly realizing the quote that all men are created equal and all are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Thank you for allowing me to embrace the memory of one woman who fought for those fundamental principles, Alaskan Elizabeth Peratrovich. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BEGICH

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

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I come to the floor with a simple message about our economy. I know we are in the process of our Transportation bill, and the chairman of the committee may come out momentarily, so I will yield when that moment happens so we keep that process going because that bill is about creating jobs and infrastructure investment. But I just wanted to comment on the fact that we have made incredible progress, and we continue to make incredible progress, when we think about where we were 3 years ago and where we are today. I know some in Washington like to focus on scare tactics and talk how bad things are or how they could be worse if we continue on whatever path they think we are on. But the fact is we have to look at the recent notifications produced not by a bunch of politicians but by other people who are looking at the economy or investing in the economy or participating in the economy in a pretty direct way. One statistic is reflected on this incredible chart. When we look at it, it speaks for itself. Just prior to 2009 and a little after, we had about 8 million jobs that were lost. This chart shows we have now had 22 months of consecutive growth, but actually we have had 23 months of consecutive growth. This number, which says we have had 3.2 million new jobs, is actually closer to 3.7 million new jobs in our economy since the great recession started in late 2008, early 2009. I know people come down and say: Oh, it could be better. I don't know about you, but the way I see it, this was bad; this is better. Can we do better? We always strive to do better. That is the American way. We try to do better as we move on. But there is no question there is good news and job losses are diminishing and now gone with job gains. These are private sector job gains, which is important but, more important, the underlying issue of the job gains is small business. If we watched the data this last month--when the unemployment rate was estimated to be a little higher, but it actually came out at 8.3, lower than almost every economist thought--all we had to do was look underneath the data point and it was very clear that small businesses were hiring. They are the backbone of this economy. If they are hiring in December and January, in months when people expect--in January especially--the economy will start slowing down, the reason they are hiring is because they see the future and they see increasing sales and the potential. Again, I know we hear people say: Oh, it is not as good as it could be. But 8.3 is better than what everybody figured it would be. Do I want it lower? Does the Presiding Officer want it lower? Of course, we do. But the trend lines are clear. We also had a 4-year low in U.S. jobless claims, again boosting spending in our economy. An article in CNN in late December noted ``consumer confidence shoots higher again.'' Why is that important? The more consumers are confident about the economy, the more they engage in the economy. It is interesting to note how low refinancing rates are--3.75 percent, 3.875 percent, unbelievably low. Yet people are still hesitant. But when we start looking at the data points from the last few weeks--especially one that came out yesterday--more and more people are refinancing--a 21-percent increase last month in refinancing. Why is that important? Again, consumers feel confident. The rates are strong for them so they can get a better rate on their home. Net result: More money in their pocket for themselves to spend on their families, on whatever they want to buy--vacations, a new remodel job they want to do, the kitchen they have been holding off fixing up or that fence that is tipping over a little bit. Now they will hire a small contractor to fix it. So consumer confidence is on the rise. Again, we will hear it is not good enough. Yes, but it doesn't mean we are done. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but we have done incredible things. In an AP article on February 3, just last week or so, we saw the headline ``Homebuilders See Stable Housing Market Ahead.'' Let me repeat that: stable housing market. Some people will say: It is not a growing housing market. No, but before it was diving, it was sinking, it was disappearing. So ``stable'' is good. Because when we go from stable and we move to the next level, that is growth. The automobile industry--GM. I know I talk about this one a lot. Three years ago, it was flat on its back. People said: It is not going to survive; let it go away. Today, GM, according to a January 19 article in Forbes--not a very liberal magazine--``GM is No. 1 in the World Again in Auto Sales.'' No. 1. Why is that important? Because they are hiring more people, at all ranges in salaries. Their secondary facilitator, the suppliers are hiring more people. People who ship those cars are hiring more people; again, moving forward. In the Budget Committee a couple days ago, Fed Chairman Bernanke was surprised by this strong growth in manufacturing. Again, a few years ago, people said: Oh, manufacturing, we are never going to get back to the good old days. Again, we see growth. ``Industrial Suppliers Power Up Sales,'' says a Wall Street Journal article from January 21. Here is another headline--this one from CNBC on December 8: ``US State Tax Revenues return to Pre-recession Levels.'' Why is this important? That shows subeconomies within States and within communities are growing--again, a stronger economy. Back in my home State, we are making progress on the Chuckchi and Beaufort Seas, where we will see huge potential oil and gas development, with 26 billion barrels of known recoverable oil today. I think it is a lot higher, but that is what we know about. It could provide, once in production, 30,000 jobs and millions in payroll, not just throughout Alaska but throughout this country because that is U.S. oil for U.S. consumption and utilization or export, if we are in the business of selling it. But the point is, it is jobs for Alaskans, jobs for Americans. This month, Shell got a final air permit for its drillship, putting them one step closer to exploration. There is no question in my mind we are going to make that happen. Three years ago, people were saying: We are never going to do anything in Federal waters. We will never develop our resources in Alaska because it is in Federal hands, and the laws, the rules, the regulations don't allow it. I stand here to say that after just 3 years, National Petroleum Reserve, Chuckchi and Beaufort, billions of barrels of oil are in exploration and/or development. That has happened in just 3 years. People are right when they say in the last 30 years we have had a lot of sluggish opportunity in that field. But today it is moving forward. In 3 years, there is new activity. That is powerful for our country from a national security perspective but also from an economic security perspective. We know ConocoPhillips--again, I already mentioned National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska--has now received its permit to move forward, and they hope to start developing in 2013. In 2010, investments in Alaska's mining exploration totaled more than $264 million, a 47-percent increase, and one-third of the total spent on mining exploration in the United States overall was in Alaska. There is a new gold rush in Alaska with continued increasing in gold prices. Placer mining applications, generally submitted by small family-run operations, rose from 350 in 2005 to over 581 this year. Alaska even has a reality show called ``Gold Rush.'' Exports to Alaska topped over $5 billion in 2011, and China is now our No. 1 top trading partner. There are liquefied natural gas opportunities in the Asian market that we are exploring. I can assure you Alaska and Alaska companies have a strong interest in moving forward. The good news is spreading across this country. But as I say, our work is not done. We must continue to build on this progress and secure a long-term economic stability that will protect our middle-class American families and support our small businesses moving forward. We must address the deficit. Unemployment is still too high. It is better, but it is still too high, and our housing market is still a little weak. Europe's economic situation remains uncertain, and we continue to depend on unstable sources of foreign oil. All of that is why we must move forward on an agenda that will continue to strengthen our economy, protect middle-class families, and support small businesses, including extending the payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance, developing a true energy plan that includes domestic oil development, address tax reform to protect the middle class, rebuild this country's infrastructure, and strengthen our housing market. We can and must improve our economy and address long-term fiscal challenges at the same time. Even with hard work ahead, there is a lot of reason for optimism. We are moving in the right direction. We are creating jobs, and we are turning this economy around. I will end on this note. I spend time looking at every business publication and reading what is going on not just from a global perspective but from companies themselves, and I have been seeing headlines--again, from the Wall Street Journal--such as ``Jobs Power Market Rebound: Unemployment Rate Dips to 8.3% on Broad Gains,'' ``Dow at Highest Since May 2008.'' Some people say: It is hard to gauge that based on the market. But if you are one of those people who put a little money aside for your retirement--in maybe a 401(k) or an IRA--or you have a little set-aside for the kids to go to college, then you know 2009 was a sad year. You were thinking you were going to have to work a lot longer just to make up some of that money. Today, the market is double what it was then. I would challenge people to take their 2009 March-April statements, if they have them--an education account for their kids or an IRA--and compare that to what it is today. It is better. Can it be even better than it is today? Absolutely. That is what we will continue to strive for. Again, I am going to continue to come to the floor and talk about this great economic news. I know people want to see the worst in things sometimes, but I think what has made this country great is that, generally, we see the best in things. We see what the opportunities are and we take advantage of them. We risk a little bit--as we did with the auto bailout and the cash for clunkers. We took a little risk and walked the road alone. Today, that is almost all paid off and, guess what. There is a thriving industry providing jobs all across the country. So we have a lot to be proud of and a lot to look forward to. We just have to keep on the path, take a little risk once in a while, push the envelope, and bank on the American people. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I would like to focus attention on inventors. Senate Joint Resolution 140, Public Law 97-198, designated February 11, the anniversary of the birth of the inventor Thomas Alva Edison, as National Inventors' Day. Each year we recognize the contributions of those who use their imagination and skills to conceive, create, concoct, discover, devise, and formulate new devices, machines, and processes in order to receive patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Inventors play an enormously important role in promoting progress in every aspect of our lives. Invention and innovation are basic to the technological and manufacturing strength of the United States and our economic, environmental, and social well-being. The Constitution specifically provides for the granting of exclusive rights to inventors for their discoveries. During the First Congress, President George Washington prevailed upon the House and Senate to enact a patent statute and wisely advised that ``there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science.'' In our State, since our Nation's bicentennial, over 1,600 patents have been issued to Alaska residents. The ingenuity of our citizens is reflected in the variety of patents issued such as a vehicle escape tool; an ocean spill and contaminated sea ice containment, separation, and removal system; an audible fishing weight; and a fish pin bone removal apparatus--just to name a few. In recent years, over 500 new applications have been received by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from Alaskans involving wells, hydraulic and earth engineering, and electric conductors and insulators. I applaud the efforts of support groups in Alaska such as the Inventors Institute of Alaska, Alaska Inventors and Entrepreneurs, and the Patent and Trademark Resource Center. The genius of inventors is key to our future. The next great American invention could be among the patent applications pending at the Patent Office. On the observance of National Inventors' Day, I urge all Alaskans to reflect on contributions of inventors and to take part in appropriate programs and activities.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I am down here to speak in favor of the FAA reauthorization conference report that the Senate will vote on shortly. I thank Chairman Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison for their great work on this piece of legislation--a long time coming. It has not been reauthorized since 2007, so it has been a long time coming. So I am very excited about this opportunity. I think it is maybe a new trend for the year. Last week we passed the STOCK Act, and today hopefully we will pass the FAA bill. There has been a lot of work, a lot of compromise on these two pieces of legislation and this one particularly today. The last time Congress actually passed a comprehensive FAA bill was in 2003. The bill expired in 2007. Since then, the FAA has been operating on 23 short-term extensions. These temporary extensions have been detrimental. They have prevented progress on modernizing our air traffic control. I speak as someone who just literally flew in a couple of hours ago overnight from Alaska. We clearly understand air traffic. They did not give airports funding certainty for planning, runway, and safety improvements, and they resulted in a brief shutdown in which 4,000 FAA employees were furloughed for almost 2 weeks last summer. It is far past time that Congress pass a comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill. While this bill is significant for the entire country, it is particularly important for my residents, the residents of aviation in Alaska, and residents overall. It is truly a lifeblood. When you think of aviation, it is our highway in the sky. Alaska has 6 times more pilots and 16 times more aircraft per capita than the rest of the United States. More than 80 percent of our communities are not on the road system. So aviation is the only reliable year-round means of transportation. This conference report invests over $13 billion in our airport infrastructure over the next 4 years. Let me underline that--$13 billion in the next 4 years. This is about jobs. It is about improving airport safety. In an economy that is slowly recovering and on the right track, this will add to the needed jobs in the construction industry but also make sure that we put them to work in areas such as aviation which are critically needed. It will improve our runways, create more safety projects in our airports and our runway areas, yet safely accommodate the higher traffic levels while putting tens of thousands of Americans to work. This bill invests in and accelerates the deployment of the NextGen modernization of our air traffic control system, as you have heard described already. We have been using a World War II-era radar technology for our air traffic control. Transition to more accurate satellite-based tracking will allow for more direct routes between destinations, reducing fuel use and saving airlines money. The backbone of this technology, called ADS-B, was proven in Alaska as part of the capstone project. So we are excited that we were the incubator for such an important element of our aviation, and now to see it accelerated and moved throughout the whole industry will be a huge benefit to the consumer. For Alaskans, it contains an amendment which I offered and was cosponsored by Senator Murkowski, providing relief for a one-size-fits- all rulemaking. That rule inadvertently prevented the shipment of compressed oxygen needed for medical and construction purposes in rural Alaska. This legislation also contains a special provision that Senator Coburn from Oklahoma and I sponsored called the orphan earmarks provision. It repeals earmarks for aviation projects if less than 10 percent of the earmark has not been used after 9 years. It saves millions of dollars on stalled projects so that we can direct those limited resources where they can have the greatest bang for the dollar. This conference report makes significant investments in the Essential Air Service Program--otherwise known as EAS--which serves rural and isolated areas. Forty-four communities in Alaska will continue to receive a minimal level of scheduled passenger service. There are sensible reforms that will exclude communities in the lower 48 with fewer than 10 passengers per day. The House FAA bill proposed to make truly Draconian cuts to the EAS Program. I wish to thank Chair Rockefeller particularly for his effort to make sure that rural communities throughout America and Alaska continue to receive the access they need to airspace and travel from their small communities. For the general aviation community, this bill contains no new user fees. Let me repeat that--no new user fees for general aviation. There is aviation community funding for research into an unleaded fuel substitute which one day may replace avgas. There are incentives for ADS-B equipment. I will continue to work with my copartner on the general aviation caucus, Senator Johanns, to make sure that aviation policies are mindful of the significant role general aviation plays not only in my State of Alaska but throughout this country. For our airline passengers, this conference report includes a passengers' bill of rights championed by Senators Boxer and Snowe. It codifies commonsense approaches and changes, such as making sure passengers have adequate food and water and lavatory access if delayed on the tarmac and options to deplane if the flight has been excessively delayed. It is not a perfect bill. I was disappointed that the conference report contains language pertaining to the National Mediation Board and the rules governing union organizing. It is not relevant to the underlying bill. It was not included in the bill the Senate passed last year. We understand this was a necessary compromise for the House leadership to allow this long-stalled bill to move forward. Again, it is not an appropriate element to this bill, but recognizing that the overall bill is critical to the long-term health of our aviation industry and the passengers of this country, we can take comfort from the fact that we added over 30 provisions in this conference report that will improve conditions for aviation workers. I firmly believe the controversial NMB language has no place in this bill. I also recognize it is time to move forward. I wish to recognize again the leadership of Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison of the Senate Commerce Committee and their tireless work. They never gave up. Their staffs continued to work and to push forward, to push everyone when it looked as if the differences between the House and Senate were impossible to resolve. The conference report before us is a testament to their tenacity and their bipartisanship. This bill is a shining example of what Congress can accomplish when we put our differences aside and sit down to do the daily work of legislating. This is a very strong bill, a bipartisan bill. It is just unfortunate it has taken this long to get here. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this monumental conference report which will put Americans back to work, enhance our airport infrastructure, and will make the safest aviation system in the world even safer. I yield the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I wish to recognize February as Black History Month. Each February our Nation focuses on the contributions African Americans have made in shaping our Nation. This year, the Association for the Study of African American Life and History has declared the theme for 2012: ``Black Women In American Culture and History.'' Each year since 1976, the President issues an executive proclamation naming February as African American History Month. More than a half dozen Federal agencies, including the Library of Congress, conduct celebrations, programs, and activities relating to this rich history. I join them in recognizing the importance of remembering the contributions made by such memorable figures as Rosa Parks, Shirley Chisholm, Sojourner Truth and Maya Angelou just to name a few, and our country's initial African-American First Lady, Michelle Obama. Just as importantly, countless unsung African-American women have made a mark in their communities by caring for their families, teaching our youth, running successful businesses, serving their churches, and getting elected to public office. Many African Americans spent their entire lives without getting the credit they deserved. By focusing on Black history in February, we can give overdue acknowledgement and perhaps inspire our young African Americans to continue to achieve greatness. In Alaska, African Americans have worked to build our communities with their many contributions. I urge all Alaskans and other Americans to examine and contemplate the significance of the contributions that African-American men and women have made in determining the course of these United States of America.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I would like to speak for a moment on the courageous and heroic actions of a fellow Alaskan. Dr. Paul Taylor of Fairbanks, AK, while serving as a member of the United States Army Special Forces in the Republic of Vietnam, risked his life on January 17, 1967, to save a wounded soldier and prevent the further demise of American forces. While under heavy attack, Staff Sergeant Taylor and a fellow soldier led a direct charge on the enemy position and both sustained serious injuries. After dragging his wounded comrade to safety, Staff Sergeant Taylor continued to lead the attack on the enemy until the platoon could retreat to a secure helicopter landing zone. Staff Sergeant Taylor's decorations from his service in Vietnam include a Bronze Star with ``V'' device, Silver Star, three Purple Hearts, and the Army Commendation medal. It is with great honor and humility that I, along with the United States Army, on February 4, 2012 will recognize Dr. Taylor with the presentation of a Silver Star with a Single Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster for this action. Although this recognition is 45 years after the fact, Dr. Taylor's actions and sacrifice shall not be forgotten by Alaskans and all Americans as the memory is still alive with him.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Thank you, Mr. President. I also enjoyed this debate. I agree with Senator Brown. It is a form they already fill out now. We just have to add one other line. It is not complicated. I think it is a good idea. I will leave it at that. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business about the STOP Act.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. The STOP Act is the Stop the Outrageous Pay for Fannie and Freddie Act, the bill Senator Thune and I introduced this morning. Our bill comes in the aftermath of a series of events that began last November when reports surfaced that the Federal Housing Finance Agency, FHFA, approved nearly $13 million in bonuses for 10 executives, that enterprise that supervises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In response, Senator Thune and I spearheaded a bipartisan letter, signed by 58 other Senators to the FHFA, Acting Director Edward DeMarco and the Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner. We expressed outrage over these pay levels, and I believe our message was heard. Almost 3 months after our letter was sent, the pressure was clearly on. Government regulators were cutting the pay of the executives they hired to replace the departing heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Also, in response to our efforts, House Financial Services Committee chairman Spencer Bachus introduced legislation suspending these bonuses and limiting future compensation packages for Fannie and Freddie employees. In November, his committee passed the bill by a vote of 52 to 4. The Begich-Thune STOP Act is a commonsense approach to address the outrageous Wall Street-like bonuses and pay that have occurred at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for far too long and which continue to occur to this day, even after billions in taxpayer bailouts. I wish to make it clear, this bill will not change the life much for nonexecutives. The pay structure for the everyday, hard-working Americans at Fannie and Freddie will stay almost as it is today. They are not the target. However, it will change the life for executives such as Peter Federico, who earned $2.5 million in 2010 and had a target compensation of $2.6 million in 2011. This was at the same time he was gambling that struggling homeowners would be unable to refinance their high-interest mortgages to record-low interest rates. This is unacceptable, unethical, and I know this body will not tolerate it. Here is how our legislation works: It simply places Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees on the same pay scale as the financial regulators at the FDIC and SEC, a pay scale long established in Federal law. It is a pay scale called the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act. This is the pay scale we are basing our legislation on. Under our approach, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees cannot be paid more than employees of other Federal financial regulatory agencies. Right now the highest paid person under this pay scale makes $275,000 a year. This is our pay cap. While this is a lot of money, it is not any more than what the cops, as we call them, on the financial beat make to ensure that ordinary Americans are protected and get a fair shake. Our legislation also stops any future bonus payments that go beyond the cap established in this legislation. Also, any bonuses that have been granted but have not yet been paid will be stopped. Any money in excess of the cap we have established will be used to pay down the national debt. Finally, our bill requires that Fannie and Freddie salaries be made available to Congress and the public through the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee. I am aware of the criticism of this bill and I would like to address them. Senator McCain offered an amendment yesterday that freezes bonus pay. I support Senator McCain in his efforts. In fact, I cosponsored this very same amendment the last time it was offered. Many of my colleagues have asked me why our bill does not freeze bonus pay. Our bill is based on a broad-based approach that looks at the entire pay structure within Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While it tackles the huge bonuses and pay policies for executives at Fannie and Freddie, we believe the everyday employees earning modest salaries should be occasionally rewarded for outstanding work so it ensures they get the small bonuses that may be effective for them. But to clarify, these would be modest bonuses that would never exceed the pay cap established in this bill. I have also heard the concern that Fannie and Freddie will not be able to attract the right kind of talent if they cannot pay people multimillion-dollar compensation packages. I hate to state the obvious: Fannie and Freddie have proven the opposite. They paid executives outrageous compensation and yet still failed by Alaskans and all Americans. They needed hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts and still ended up in conservatorship. This sends an unsettling message to millions of hard-working people who are struggling to make ends meet. They have taken Alaskans' tax dollars in the form of bailouts. Yet when my constituents in Anchorage or Kotzebue or Fairbanks or Juneau needed help to avoid foreclosure or refinance their loans, Fannie and Freddie often turned their backs. Finally, I have this response to people who say Fannie and Freddie executives need to earn millions: Whatever happened to the concept of public service or to the notion that it is an honorable calling to work on behalf of your friends and your neighbors? There are lots of dedicated, hard-working professionals at Fannie and Freddie who believe in that notion, and they are doing their absolute best to help American families to afford the American dream of owning and keeping their homes. The Begich-Thune bill makes sure this hard work continues and that their bosses at Fannie and Freddie come to work every day not with visions of dollar signs but instead with a clear eye of doing what is right for all Americans. I urge all Members to support this commonsense bipartisan bill. Senators Tester, McCaskill, Baucus, Blunt, Grassley, Hoeven, Enzi, and Scott Brown have already joined Senator Thune and me as original cosponsors. I wish to thank them for their support.