Mark Begich

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I rise to speak also on the Rebuild America Jobs Act. Our Nation's infrastructure is in a state of disrepair. We see it in the potholes in our streets, in the congested highways of public transit that lack the capacity to safely and efficiently get Americans where they need to go. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives our Nation's infrastructure a D grade. One in four bridges in the United States is structurally deficient. Our deteriorating infrastructure has negative impacts on commerce and our economy. We no longer have an infrastructure system that is the envy of the world. When you invest in public infrastructure, you have two results: You create immediate construction jobs and you lay the foundation, the groundwork, to improve communities and facilitate commerce. That was certainly my experience when I was mayor of Anchorage. I became mayor in 2003 at a time of economic slowdown--not quite as bad as the national recession we face today, but we inherited huge budget deficits and a dramatic slowdown in our economy. Our answer to turn Anchorage around was to invest in our basic system of roads and water and sewer and power--basic infrastructure. One of the best examples of the public infrastructure investment was a small community in the northern part of Anchorage called Mountain View. We knew there was great potential for economic turnaround in this community. We knew it because the community was interested. But in that community the public infrastructure hadn't been invested in for decades. We did some simple things at first--upgraded the roads, basic systems that move people from one end of Mountain View to the other. We invested in schools. Then we invested in some public facilities. Today, Mountain View is the home of a branch of one of our large credit unions which is now their top performer in new accounts. Also new retail was established there--restaurant, phone store--and housing developments where no housing was being developed in this neighborhood. As a matter of fact, this neighborhood--I know it well because I grew up not far from there--was the neighborhood where people lived and then they tried to figure out how to move out of the neighborhood. Today it is a community of choice, a place where people want to go. Well over 140 housing units have been developed in this community in the last 5 years. Also additional public offices and a library were developed there for the first time in over 22 years. Simple investments created private sector investment along with it. Another example is, we built a new $100 million convention center in our downtown Anchorage. The new Dena'ina Center is now an economic engine attracting bigger conventions and meetings and tens of thousands of visitors a year. In September alone the new convention center generated almost $12 million in revenue supporting restaurants, shops, and hotels. Again, as someone born and raised in Anchorage, I remember when businesses were fleeing the downtown. They saw it as not an opportunity for economic development. By making these simple investments, we can have a long-term impact. This $100 million may sound like a lot of money. Let me give another example--$40,000 we invested in improved street lights in a small part of downtown along G Street. Property owners had legitimate concerns of safety after dark. When winter hits in Alaska, there is a lot less light, so we invested about $40,000 per street light, installing some simple street lights, a dozen or so along the road there. As a result, the character of the street has dramatically changed. We have seen 10 new businesses spring up in a three-block section of G Street because it is safer. People move freely at any time of the day. There are year-round retail and restaurant businesses such as an Urban Greens, Jo Jo A Go Go, Modern Dwellers, Alaska Cake Studio, and Octopus Ink--a variety of new businesses. Retailers are investing their hard-earned capital, reaching out to expand opportunity for Anchorage. These businesses probably would not have made the investment without the small investment of the public infrastructure. In my view, we need to follow this model on a national level. Failure to invest in our crumbling infrastructure--our roads, bridges, airports--will cost us nearly a million American jobs without this investment. It is incredibly important to move our economy forward by legislation such as the Rebuild America Jobs Act. We have an opportunity to reverse this trend while helping to put hundreds of thousands of people back to work. This could put Alaskans back to work on important projects--bridge repairs outside the Denali National Park, a critical route between Alaska's two population centers and a heavily traveled route for tour operators and shippers; intersection upgrades on two of the busiest roads in downtown Fairbanks; highway safety improvements along the Seward Highway outside of Anchorage that reduce deadly traffic accidents and delays; safety improvements along the Sterling Highway on the Kenai Peninsula--other areas of high visitor traffic in the summer. We know these improvements will support local economic growth all around Alaska, which is still a very young State compared to many States, and has tremendous transportation needs. Two years ago, this Congress approved the Recovery Act which funded sorely needed projects across my State--projects such as the Gustavus dock, Alaska Railroad line improvements, Glenn Highway repairs, and airport upgrades. These all created immediate construction jobs and have also improved access points so private companies can increase revenues and create long-term jobs. The Rebuild America Jobs Act not only provides desperately needed repair funds, it also provides the seed money for the National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will attract private sector capital to help fund a broad range of nationally significant projects. The concept for the infrastructure bank has broad bipartisan support and is currently being championed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Moody's estimates for every $1 spent on roads and water and sewer-- the basic infrastructure of this country--GDP is raised by $1.59. The Rebuild America Jobs Act would make some key investments--$27 billion to rebuild roads and bridges; $9 billion to invest in public transit; $3 billion to invest in our airports and modernization of our air traffic control system, which will make aviation more efficient and safer. For Alaskans, this investment would fund $220 million in much-needed transportation improvements and modernization which of course means good jobs--an estimated 2,900 jobs in Alaska from this bill. Infrastructure development and investment has historically been a bipartisan effort. The American people want Congress to work together. This is a good bill to deal with our Nation's roads, bridges, rails, ports, and runways. Let me close by saying I have been here almost 3 years. We have some good bills that passed and we argued over some that we wished would pass. We have had some success over the last couple of weeks here, when you think about the China currency bill, the three trade bills. Now we have this bill. We have put three jobs bills up. Two have not been able to pass because of opposition from the other side but here is one that we know has bipartisan support. The infrastructure bank, the Chamber of Commerce is actively promoting this because they see the melding of the public and private sectors moving together to invest in the future of this economy. They also know when you lay down those roads or that better infrastructure on rail or transit, the net result is private sector investment will occur either right after it or simultaneously. I hope folks on the other side will make the decision that it is wise to invest today and move this bill forward so we can have a long-term economic impact for our country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 2, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy, and Global Women's Issues, and the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs entitled, ``Women and the Arab Spring.''

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 2, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. in room G-50 of the Dirksen Senate office building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ensuring Quality and Oversight in Assisted Living.''.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 2, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 2, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ten Years After 9/11: The Next Wave in Aviation Security.''

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 2, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 2, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a European Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``The European Debt Crisis: Strategic Implications for the Transatlantic Alliance.''

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce an amended version of S. 542, the National Guard, Reserve, ``Gray Area'' Retiree, and Surviving Spouse Space-available Travel Equity Act. The original legislation, S. 542, has been modified slightly. The modification will ensure the Department of Defense retains the authority to issue regulations to implement the bill. The underlying intent of the legislation has not changed. The bill will provide reserve component members and retired reserve component members the ability to travel overseas and travel with their dependents when there is space-available on a military aircraft. Additionally, the bill will ensure surviving spouses of retired members or members killed in the line of duty to retain space-available travel privileges after the death of their loved one. 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. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving parity to our reserve component members, reserve component retirees and surviving military spouses. The no-cost legislation is endorsed by the National Guard Association of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce an amended version of S. 542, the National Guard, Reserve, ``Gray Area'' Retiree, and Surviving Spouse Space-available Travel Equity Act. The original legislation, S. 542, has been modified slightly. The modification will ensure the Department of Defense retains the authority to issue regulations to implement the bill. The underlying intent of the legislation has not changed. The bill will provide reserve component members and retired reserve component members the ability to travel overseas and travel with their dependents when there is space-available on a military aircraft. Additionally, the bill will ensure surviving spouses of retired members or members killed in the line of duty to retain space-available travel privileges after the death of their loved one. 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. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving parity to our reserve component members, reserve component retirees and surviving military spouses. The no-cost legislation is endorsed by the National Guard Association of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. I first wish to say I know my colleague from Alaska was on the floor talking. Today is Alaska Day. It was a great day for our country when the final transfer from Russia to the United States resulted in the great State of Alaska, which has incredible resources from which this country has benefited. I want to wish all the people back home a great Alaska Day. Amendment No. 739 I came down to the floor because I know my friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, has offered an amendment on elimination of transportation enhancements. Let me speak about two parts. One, as a former mayor who dealt with this issue over and over but also as someone whose family has been in the business industry and understands the power of a great community and what it can do for the long-term economic health of the community when the infrastructure is designed and built right and also someone who was in the real estate industry. First, as a former mayor, we debated these issues a great deal on transportation enhancements. I know there will be issues at times, and it doesn't matter if it is this program or the Defense Department or Interior Department, I can name any department over the years that has had issues that have come up that have not had the most appropriate expenditure of the dollar. When we look at transportation enhancements, they are an incredible asset. I will tell you, from the aspect of Alaska and having served as the mayor of Anchorage for 5\1/2\ years, we built more roads than the last three mayors combined. In 5 years, we built a ton of roads to enhance our communities. But the roads of the 1950s and 1960s are no longer the viable roads of the future. In the old days, they built them, paved them, maybe put a curb on, maybe a sidewalk, and that would be considered the road, the transportation network. Things have changed quite a bit. The roads we built in Anchorage not only had the curb, the sidewalk, the transportation enhancements, the landscaping that goes along with it-- because when we put all of that into play, the net result is we get a better transportation network. One can utilize it, as we have done with a couple roads in our neighborhoods, to slow down traffic so they will not be a danger to the children within the zone. In the case of some, where we built pedestrian multi-use trails--which I can point to several within our own area when I was mayor in Anchorage--where these trails became huge enhancements for the neighborhood but also to our visitors. When the visitors came and spent money on our economy, maybe they went to a place to visit or they went out fishing, but maybe they came back and went out after dinner to take a walk. These trails that were well designed and landscaped properly would be another experience they would see and feel and take back to their home and hometown. This amendment Senator McCain has brought forward is opposed by not only the U.S. Conference of Mayors but the National Tour Association, the U.S. Travel Association, the Southeastern Tourism Society, and many others are growing on the list because they see not only the value for improving the road infrastructure, but they see the value of attracting quality of life that makes the property values better around these enhancements, the tourism that comes along with it, and the value of economic development. I think there is just a lack of understanding by some Members because they like to pick one or two--and I would agree we have to constantly review these programs to make sure they are used for the right purposes. In this case, I will tell you--and I can show you project after project in Alaska where we saw a great value. It could be the Water Street improvements in Ketchikan, which during my time in the Senate in the last 2\1/2\ years, I have seen that development change the Front Street of their community; the Kenai River Trail improvements--which many people know the great Kenai River has incredible fishing for salmon--to ensure that the trails are safe. Why do we want the trails improved? If people are crawling over the banks, they deteriorate the banks, they create erosion and they destroy the habitat and destroy the great Salmon Creek. In Anchorage, where we improved Ship Creek with the same kinds of enhancements, why did we do that? Again, to make it safer for the pedestrians who viewed it and also to ensure that the $600 million fishery that was and is in Anchorage would thrive because we are not damaging the habitat. I can go on and on about project after project, where we saw great improvement of the road projects. I know some will believe the road projects are asphalt and maybe a little drain and that is it. I can tell you, from putting my hat on from the real estate industry--I spent many years in the real estate industry--what people looked for is the quality of the environment around them. If you were on a strip-paved road or barely a paved road with a little drain or curb, it had a certain value. If you were on a road that had a nice pedestrian pathway, nice curb and gutter and landscaping, I guarantee you those property values were stronger and better. The local community benefited from that because it now had stronger property taxes because of the higher property value. The homeowner benefited because they had an investment that would maintain its value because of the quality of the infrastructure. The roads, water, sewer system, in this case, the enhancements were of high quality. Those who brush it off as wasteful expenditures, I can show you again project after project where we took substandard roads, enhanced them with transportation enhancement resources, dollars, and the net result was we had economic development occur around it. We had quality of life improve. We had better values in our properties that are owned by the private sector, whether it be commercial or residential. Again, I would strongly recommend to my friend from Arizona that I know it is easy--because the staff who run around here always want to give the worst-case scenario of everything. We can always do that. That is easy to do. We can always find one project somewhere about something. But that is not what this is about. It is about the 90-plus percent or the 98-percent of projects that are incredible enhancements to the community. As a mayor and someone who was in the real estate industry, I have seen the value of these. As I mentioned also, the organizations that don't support these, the tourism industry folks I mentioned who don't support these because they understand that when one is traveling to a community, it is not just about the one item. They go in there--and let's use Alaska as an example--for king salmon fishing or maybe in the wintertime skiing, whatever it might be, there are these other pieces people experience. In Alaska, we have some great trail systems that people rave about and they talk about. Whenever I go around the country and I run into someone who visited Alaska, they will tell me the name of the community they were visiting or talk about this trail or that trail. Ship Creek Trail is a beautiful trail that at lunchtime tons of people utilize. It is a huge benefit for producing the quality of life for downtown. I would encourage--and I recognize there are things I agree with, with Senator McCain, multiple things that I worked on with the Defense authorization, but this one I beg to differ on his rationale of getting rid of this resource. It is important for local communities. I wish to emphasize, the best part of this is these are not congressional earmarks. It is money set aside that the local communities, through their metropolitan planning efforts or in the State, through their efforts, decide on how to spend this money. It is the best way to allow local communities less Federal control to do the right thing based on some framework and guidelines here. If we want less Federal Government, this is one of those programs that allows flexibility on the local end to do the right thing and do what they think will enhance our road improvements and communities, be it small neighborhoods or major highways. As I have always done, I invite Senator McCain to Alaska. I will take him on the bypass where we can drive, see some incredible beluga whales, go down to Girdwood and see an incredible rain forest at the same time. I will take him to four or five of these projects. He will want to pull over and take photos. Those will be federally funded projects that made it possible for him to do that. Why is that important? Because if you drive the new Seward Highway from Anchorage to Girdwood, it is not the safest highway. These pullouts, these waysides, these enhancements have made it a safer place. You can pull over and see Dall sheep walking on the side of the mountains right there. Instead of stopping on the road and pulling off on the side there a little bit, you actually pull off into a wayside. It is safer, better for tourism. It does the right thing, ensuring that the project is a better project. Again, I would challenge my friend from Arizona that I will gladly take him on many of these projects and show him the value of what we have done with them, the economic opportunity that goes along with them, the jobs that are created with them, the long-term benefit to the values of the properties that is associated with these improvements that are in the private sector. Madam President, I thank you for allowing me a few minutes. I again wish my friends and all my constituents back home a great Alaska Day. But I also wanted to talk about an important amendment that I think would be the wrong direction if we vote for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a piece of legislation honoring a great Alaskan. James Martin Fitzgerald was a giant of my State's judicial community for 5 decades--almost as long as Alaska has been a State. This legislation, naming the Anchorage federal courthouse facility in Judge Fitzgerald's honor, is a fitting tribute to his legacy. James Fitzgerald first came to Alaska in the 1950s. He was a decorated World War II Marine veteran, an accomplished lawyer, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and became Alaska's first Commissioner of Public Safety. From November 1959 until his retirement until 2006, he served with distinction as a State and Federal judge unanimously praised for his fairness, brilliance and humility. Judge Fitzgerald served as a judge on the Alaska Superior Court, Third District, from 1959 through 1972. He was the presiding judge on that court from 1969 through 1972. At that time, he became an Alaska Supreme Court Justice, where he would serve until 1975. President Gerald Ford nominated Judge Fitzgerald to be a Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in December of 1974. He was quickly confirmed by the U.S. Senate and received his commission to the Federal bench. Judge Fitzgerald served on this Federal court until his retirement in 2006 and also spent 5 years as the chief judge of the court. In addition to his impressive record of accomplishments and his years of public service, Judge Fitzgerald was also known for his integrity and character. His colleagues on the bench, the lawyers who testified in his courtroom and his friends and neighbors all knew him to be a humble, kind, thoughtful and generous man. For decades he was praised for his legal brilliance and his respect for all those who sought justice in his court. His contributions to the State of Alaska will not be forgotten. Naming the Anchorage federal courthouse in Judge Fitzgerald's honor is broadly supported by Alaskans. In fact, I assembled a small committee of outstanding Alaska leaders to review this proposal and they strongly endorsed extending this honor to Judge Fitzgerald. I would like to thank the committee members for their public service: Anchorage attorney Lloyd Miller, Judge John D. Roberts, Juneau Mayor Bruce Botelho, and Liz Medicine Crow of the First Alaskans Institute. For all these reasons, today I am proud to introduce this legislation to designate the United States Courthouse in Anchorage as the James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse. He was a great man and this is a fine way to remember all he did for my State. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a piece of legislation honoring a great Alaskan. James Martin Fitzgerald was a giant of my State's judicial community for 5 decades--almost as long as Alaska has been a State. This legislation, naming the Anchorage federal courthouse facility in Judge Fitzgerald's honor, is a fitting tribute to his legacy. James Fitzgerald first came to Alaska in the 1950s. He was a decorated World War II Marine veteran, an accomplished lawyer, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and became Alaska's first Commissioner of Public Safety. From November 1959 until his retirement until 2006, he served with distinction as a State and Federal judge unanimously praised for his fairness, brilliance and humility. Judge Fitzgerald served as a judge on the Alaska Superior Court, Third District, from 1959 through 1972. He was the presiding judge on that court from 1969 through 1972. At that time, he became an Alaska Supreme Court Justice, where he would serve until 1975. President Gerald Ford nominated Judge Fitzgerald to be a Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in December of 1974. He was quickly confirmed by the U.S. Senate and received his commission to the Federal bench. Judge Fitzgerald served on this Federal court until his retirement in 2006 and also spent 5 years as the chief judge of the court. In addition to his impressive record of accomplishments and his years of public service, Judge Fitzgerald was also known for his integrity and character. His colleagues on the bench, the lawyers who testified in his courtroom and his friends and neighbors all knew him to be a humble, kind, thoughtful and generous man. For decades he was praised for his legal brilliance and his respect for all those who sought justice in his court. His contributions to the State of Alaska will not be forgotten. Naming the Anchorage federal courthouse in Judge Fitzgerald's honor is broadly supported by Alaskans. In fact, I assembled a small committee of outstanding Alaska leaders to review this proposal and they strongly endorsed extending this honor to Judge Fitzgerald. I would like to thank the committee members for their public service: Anchorage attorney Lloyd Miller, Judge John D. Roberts, Juneau Mayor Bruce Botelho, and Liz Medicine Crow of the First Alaskans Institute. For all these reasons, today I am proud to introduce this legislation to designate the United States Courthouse in Anchorage as the James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse. He was a great man and this is a fine way to remember all he did for my State. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, as were many of my colleagues, I was back home last week talking, in my case, to Alaskans, and the issues on their minds are pretty simple: the economy and jobs. Alaska has fared better than most States over the last 2 years, but no matter where I go--maybe a small convenience store, while I am driving around town or at Home Depot, a gas station, or wherever I may get a chance to engage with Alaskans--people are concerned about the economy and the ability for jobs to be created in this great country of ours. Alaskans know the economy will take some time to turn around. That is why today I am pleased to talk a little bit about the jobs act before us this week and, hopefully, while moving forward we will spend some time on the debate about how important this work will be. Last week when I was in Alaska, I had Transportation Secretary LaHood in Alaska, and we had a chance to travel around and get a good sense of what is important to Alaska with regard to ports, roads, airports, and rail. The core infrastructure of our State is no different than any other State. It is critical that we repair, put into shape, some of the facilities that are falling apart or, in some cases, expand them. The jobs act alone would mean $200 million to repair Alaska's transportation network. As one can imagine, that $200 million will be spent in the private sector by construction companies and contractors hiring private individuals, workers to work on those jobs--good-paying jobs to provide good incomes for their families. The same is true that the jobs act will offer for Alaska around $62 million for school construction. As I travel around my State--and I am sure for many other States--the need is strong for improvements to and expansion of schools for those that have been there for many years and have not had the renovations necessary, again, providing hundreds and hundreds of jobs. The jobs act also has some good steps to deal with small businesses-- how to ensure they get a break off their taxes, to ensure they have a benefit as we try to move this economy forward. The tax provisions, the payroll tax reduction, which would affect 20,000 Alaska businesses in a positive way, will reduce their tax burden, as well as working families, who will see a reduction in their payroll taxes. On average, for a middle-class family, it would be almost $2,000--not a bad gift, in a sense, as we move into this holiday season. But it is really their money. Giving back this $2,000 to middle-class families means they will put it into the economy. They will spend it in the economy. They will use it as they see fit. However, I wish to lay down a marker. As I have said, the jobs bill is important for the roads and water and sewer and ports that need to be repaired and renovated and expanded, the schools that need to be built or expanded and repaired also, as well as the benefits to our small business community and the benefits to our middle-class working families--all important. But how we pay for it is also important because we have to make sure it is paid for. But I wish to put down a marker on at least the first proposal that was laid down regarding how the President was planning to pay for this. Let me first start with the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry for Alaska is about 85 percent of our economy in the sense that the money goes into our State treasury and provides well over 40,000 jobs. Nationwide, the oil and gas industry produces over 9 million jobs and contributes over $2 trillion to our economy. I know some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle like to blast Big Oil. But as we know, the oil and gas industry is made up of hundreds, well over 500 companies of all sizes--small, medium-sized, and large. Singling out a growing industry and imposing a tax penalty, in my view, is the wrong choice. It is the wrong road to go down. We need to recognize the potential for more job creation instead by supporting increased domestic oil and gas development. By developing Alaska's Arctic offshore resources alone, we can create over 50,000 jobs nationwide over the coming decade, jobs being created right here in our country. As an example, 400 jobs just in Washington to upgrade the Kulluk drilling unit which will be utilized in Alaska or the 1,000 jobs in Louisiana to build a new Arctic supply ship right now. So when we look at the potential, and when we look at the opportunities in the Arctic for oil and gas development, it creates American jobs, American jobs not only in the Arctic in Alaska but also throughout the country where many of the facilities or the material utilized is located to construct what is needed, such as in Washington State and Louisiana, as I mentioned. Also, Federal revenue would be generated. The Chamber of Commerce has estimated that developing and increasing production on Federal lands could produce well over $200 billion in new revenues to our country. An Alaska analysis puts the Federal revenues just for Beaufort and Chukchi Sea at $160 billion. For those who are not familiar with where those are, those are just above the North Slope in the Arctic. These have a potential of well over 24 billion barrels of oil development in the known technically recoverable reserves today--upwards to 24 billion, 26 billion. I will tell you I do support--and I understand in the original proposal they wanted to take away some of these tax incentives that help our industry move forward, especially the smaller companies to expand exploration and development. I recognize that tax reform needs to be done, and I am a strong supporter of tax reform. Senator Wyden and Senator Coats and I have supported a piece of legislation that is all about tax reform. I believe in a holistic proposal, not just selective industries. So do not get me wrong. Do I believe in tax reform? Do I believe in trying to clear out loopholes and incentives that are not working or may be used improperly? Absolutely. Again, that is why we supported a much broader perspective. But in pay-fors or tax proposals to pay for the jobs bill, this is not the right approach. Another concern I have is on aviation. Alaska has 6 times more pilots and 16 times more aircraft per capita than any other State in the country. Alaska has limited road infrastructure. Eighty percent of our communities are accessed not by roads but by water or air. So it is critical we have the right kind of aviation system. General aviation is not a luxury in Alaska, it is a necessity. It is our highway in the sky. That is the utilization of our airlines and small planes. The general aviation component is critical for business, life safety, moving things from one village to another. One piece of the President's jobs bill would change the way businesses can treat the depreciation of general aviation aircraft and create a disincentive to buy American-made aircraft and further depress an industry that has already felt a significant impact due to the recession. The administration and Congress should not be demonizing legitimate business travel. General aviation is more than just business jets. I know we like to read about it and see it in papers and that is what people like to highlight. But in Alaska it is about moving from one community to the other. This would impact the turbo-prop aircraft which are the workhorses for Alaska's general aviation fleet. Another administration proposal would impose a $100-per-flight user fee on certain general aviation aircraft. This is not a wise or even cost-effective way to administer a tax. General aviation users pay their fair share now. They pay for the aviation system through a per- gallon tax on their aviation fuel. As a matter of fact, the general aviation industry has even agreed to a modest increase in this fuel tax as part of the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, reauthorization bill which passed the Senate earlier this year. It shows their commitment to pay their fair share, but in an efficient way, and also puts it back into aviation, which is what in our State is, again, as I said, the highway in the sky to move goods and people all across our State. Again, I think the idea the administration has of a $100-per-flight user fee is just another burden, another fee, another tax that is not necessary and very inefficient. As we think about job creation and what is going on, the other piece of this I am concerned about as to the taxes that are associated with this idea of the jobs bill--which I support elements of, as I mentioned; very important--but the issue when it comes to limiting the itemized deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest for families earning over $200,000, again, I think this is not a well- founded idea. I recognize the administration is trying to find ways to pay for things, but this is not, in my view, a good idea or a smart move. When we think of a family, some might say: A family making $200,000 is wealthy. I will tell you, if they have a couple kids in school and are trying to figure out their future, after they figure out the deductions, their health care costs, and everything else, $200,000 disappears very quickly. We need to ensure that the deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions continue for these middle-class families at the level they can take a benefit from. So for those three or four items I have a concern with the way the pay-fors or the tax increases to pay for the jobs bill are being handled. I know there is new discussion. I am glad there is new discussion because it would be difficult for me to support any jobs bill with a pile of these new taxes or tax increases that are being proposed. This would not be in the interest of my constituents in Alaska. It would not be in the interest of my industries that work hard in Alaska, creating jobs not only in our State but across this country. I agree we need to do what we can to have a jobs bill, but let's have a fair pay-for in order to pay for it, not these additional taxes that I think would be a burden on working families and small businesses. Mr. President, I would like to digress for one last second before I yield the floor to speak on another issue. It is always enjoyable. I read every business newspaper I can. I try to read every business magazine I can. I want to absorb as much information as I can when I am here in Washington during the sessions and workweeks and then when I go back home, hearing from individuals. But it is amazing to me--and I know on the Senate floor we have our philosophical debates. We saw some of that just a little bit ago on the old days versus the new days. I have never seen the old days. I have been here only 3 years, and this place has not run very well in the sense of trying to get things up and dealt with. But I will tell you, Mr. President, some of the positions you have taken and I have taken and many on this side of the aisle have taken have been a lot of votes that have helped move this country forward. I will tell you one specifically which is about the auto industry. As I was sitting here waiting for the debate, I was looking through these articles. Here is one from yesterday from the Wall Street Journal, which is not the most liberal newspaper, to say the least. But if we recall, a couple years ago we made a decision that we were going to take some risk, we were going to try to move the country forward, save an industry that was struggling that employed people in this country and was competing worldwide. Folks on the other side said we were going to create a disaster by our actions, we would destroy the economy, we would sink this industry. The list went on and on--all the complaints. But as I read the headline in the Wall Street Journal from yesterday, it reads: ``Automakers Now Import Jobs.'' ``Import jobs,'' what does this mean? This means they are bringing jobs back to this country. They specifically mention Japan and China. Now, 3 years ago, I could read a different headline: Auto Industry on Their Deathbed, never going to survive. Maybe we would only have one auto company left. We now have three. Actually, if we look at the numbers, Chrysler is 27 percent up over the previous year in sales; GM, 20 percent up; Ford, 9 percent up. The American auto industry is doing well because of what we did here. Some called it a bailout. I disagree. What we did was partner with industry to help them get over the hump, the recession, the struggle. They are paying back every dime the Federal Government loaned them, and they are profitable. They are hiring people. They are growing the industry, and they are bringing jobs back to this country. I would say the policy we had--despite the naysayers, the negative attitudes people had on the other side--worked. Maybe the Wall Street Journal is wrong, but I do not think so because I have seen article after article that states the same. I can point to many others. Is it as robust as we want in the economy? No. Can it do better? Absolutely. That is why the jobs bill is important--important for my State, important for every State, investing in the issues that matter: water, roads, sewers, electrification, schools, you name it, putting money back into taxpayers' pockets instead of the IRS taking it and hoarding it, putting it back where it counts. That is what the jobs bill does. We have disagreements on how to pay for it. I think we are going to get to a better solution because several of us--more the moderate wing of the Democrats--are arguing that we cannot have these selective taxes the way they are laid out in the proposal presented by the President. We need to have a more simplified system and pay for it in a different way but not penalize certain companies because maybe we do not like them or it creates a great headline. But let's focus on the right way to do this. I anticipate we will be able to have a different pay-for, a different proposal on how to pay for a great potential to bring more jobs back. But I end on that note only because I want to make sure--I know we are going to hear more naysaying, but the bottom line is the proof is in the pudding. That article I just read from gives us that. Mr. President, I, again, thank you for the time and the opportunity to say a few words about the jobs bill, my concern, where I want to lay my marker down, but also to speak about the success we have had on taking some votes that were tough votes and the success we have had to move this economy forward--not as fast as we all would like, but better than I think what the folks said on the other side who just say nay, say no to everything. So let me end there, Mr. President. I yield the floor back and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BEGICH

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

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I have come to the floor and talked many times of my constituents back home in Alaska and the importance of ensuring we have a balanced approach in how we deal with this incredible debt crisis we are in and how we manage to create some certainty not only for today but in the years to come. We want to make sure we not only create certainty but we also do what we can to protect working families, honor our commitment to seniors and veterans, and let our small businesses know that we stand behind them, we want them to be successful, and we want to create some certainty out there so they can expand their operations and opportunity. I am sitting here in Washington, DC, and it is whatever temperature it is outside right now--maybe 100 degrees, with 80 or 90 percent humidity--and sometimes I think we could have gotten this done quicker if we had just turned off the air-conditioning. We probably could have gotten things done quicker, with better results. But we are where we are. We are in the last 24 hours or so before we have to make a decision as to what to do with the proposals, the solutions that have been presented. I am here, but I wish I were home, to be frank with you. This last weekend, my son was celebrating his ninth birthday, and as a parent every birthday is huge and makes a difference. I know the Presiding Officer knows that very well. So while I am here, they were enjoying life, and it made me think about a lot of things. I wanted to put this poster up because I think it is a great poster. I got this text during a committee meeting. This is my son, who just turned 9, with a real fish. For those who can't see it, it is the same height as he is. He caught this fish with his mother a few days ago. It is a 40-pounder king salmon. It is what we call a real fish. We consider this small in comparison to some others we catch. But when I got this text--and that is what is so great about technology: He sends me little notes and comments during meetings and wants to make sure I am connected to what he is doing back home. But this debate we are having--this moment in time--to figure out where we are going is about the Jacobs and the other children of his age and those not yet born. It is about what we are going to do for them. The Presiding Officer and I have already experienced and enjoyed many years of our life, and hopefully we will enjoy many more, but really it is about Jacob and the other children. When I go back home, I get a chance to talk with the kids. I am sure the Presiding Officer has done the same, where you go into an elementary school--I know the Presiding Officer was a teacher in Sunday preschool--you go in and have conversations with the kids, and in their own way, which is sometimes very brutally honest, they tell you all about what they think is going on. And I will give a quote here in a second of what my son said to me. He doesn't understand everything we are doing, but he understands it is an intense time here because I am not home. I am not with him. So he knows it is important, what we are doing here, as we debate this solution and what will be the next step. Is what we have come up with a perfect solution? No. Are there some issues about which I am still concerned? Yes. But does it move us down a path to start dealing with the spending, the deficit, and the debt, creating certainty and protecting those who need protection, such as our seniors and our veterans? Yes. This proposal produces about a $1 trillion downpayment on our deficit and debt. It lays out a process by which we can achieve another $1.5 trillion in debt reduction if this joint committee can come back with a proposal. In the process of all this, we will create certainty in the marketplace. We will create certainty for that small businessperson who has been thinking about expanding their business. They can do that because the markets will respond positively. We will create certainty for the individual who was thinking about buying a house or a car because now there will be stable rates. For those who are putting money aside for the education of their young family, as I have been putting aside for Jacob for his college, we will know now that the markets are better and safer, the bonds we invest in are safer, and our children's future is a little more secure if we do the right thing over the next 24 hours, still knowing it is not the perfect deal. The proposal evenly splits cutting between half in discretionary and half in Pentagon waste, ensuring we still are a secure nation and protecting our defenses but cutting what I would consider opportunities within the Pentagon to reduce. As we sit here today, I think about Jacob's future and the futures of all the kids I see back home. There is an enormous amount of opportunity for the pages sitting here in this room, for the kids here during the summer running around Washington, DC, and seeing these great monuments. That is what we are doing here--guaranteeing those opportunities for this generation and future generations. That is our task, making decisions based on that, not on what our next election cycle will bring should we get elected or not get elected or will this look good or not look good on a brochure. Those who have that kind of thinking are not about this country and are not supporting what this country is all about. I think about all the issues in front of us, and there has been no more critical issue during my almost 3 years in the Senate that I have had to deal with. Is there a component missing in this solution? Yes. We are not dealing with the tax cuts the millionaires and billionaires received and benefited from when they really didn't need them. We are not dealing with the loopholes, the scams and shams people have taken advantage of with our tax structure. We haven't resolved the question of fairness in our tax structure so that the middle class doesn't continue to carry the burden. We have not created a tax reform strategy that creates an opportunity for us to be more competitive in this world economy. We know that is still a big piece of this. I am hopeful that the joint committee, made up of Democrats and Republicans, will present to us a plan before Thanksgiving and we can then sit down and look at that plan and realize it is an addition to what we are doing--hopefully in the next 24 hours--in creating more fairness. I know the amazing thing about here--and I know, Madam President, you know--this place is an unbelievable place for media. We breathe, they report it. We sneeze, they report it. There will be two opinions on how we sneeze--maybe three, maybe four--because that is how it works here. They feed on every word we say, everything we do, and I know some are out there bragging that this is a great deal because it just does cuts, and it doesn't deal with revenues. Then there are others who say it doesn't deal with revenues or it hurts Social Security. We can tell when that occurs, that is probably not a bad plan because there is so much that people don't like of each element or there are elements we don't like. But we do need to deal with revenues at some point. We will need to deal with a tax reform policy that brings balance and fairness where the middle class does not continue to keep holding the bag for everything. There is a proposal Senator Wyden, Senator Coats, and myself have proposed. It is bipartisan. It is tax reform. It creates simplification, creates more corporate competitive rates, reduces the rates down for individuals but gets rid of a pile of these loopholes, these scams and shams that people have taken advantage of so they don't have to pay their fair share for the services and the benefits we all receive in this great country: the roads we drive on, the schools our kids go to, the defense of this country, the border protection of this country, the safest food in the world--you name it, we have it. That is why we are the envy of every country in the world as a place to be and raise your family. But as I look at this picture--and, yes, I am doing a little marketing of Alaska salmon. I would be remiss if I didn't do that. I think about Jacob's future and what he has and what his potential is. But I also think about his dream--because as he celebrated his birthday, my father-in-law passed the same day. When he was a young man working in Connecticut, he bought a house in New Haven as he went off to Vietnam and served his country. He was a colonel as he retired in the Army, and then he sold that home to buy what is in the background here, his cabin for his grandson to enjoy the fruits of his life and what he enjoyed of his American dream. That is what this is about. It is about making sure this generation and future generations can also have that American dream; that they have choices and options not restricted by politics or the financial condition of the country but have huge opportunities.

Mr. BEGICH. I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. BEGICH. I think about where we are today. My son has been watching this because I am not home. He has a phrase he likes to use, even though it is not the perfect deal, but it does create balance. He will say at times: ``Suck it up, buttercup.'' I don't know what show he saw that on, but all I know is that is his phrase. That is what we are going to have to do here. It is not perfect, but we are going to have to do what is right for the next generation and future generations. Madam President, we have huge opportunities and challenges ahead of us. We have an economy that needs additional work to ensure we are creating every opportunity to create jobs in this country for everybody, no matter who they are, where they live, what age they are. We need to make sure we continue to be the respected country my father- in-law fought for in Vietnam, my son hopes for, we hope for, and future generations hope for. So today I come down because I think we are close to resolving the issue that has stretched us almost to the brink. Hopefully, as we get beyond this issue we will have the ability as Democrats and as Republicans to look, first, as Americans, as Alaskans, as North Carolinians--wherever we are from--and focus on what is good for this country. We will hear more over the next 24 hours about the details and more of the deal. I have heard a lot of it already, but the public will learn. There will be pieces we don't like. There will be pieces about which I will get phone calls in my office that people don't like it. We will get calls. But at the end of the day, we are going to do it because it is the right way to move forward. It is going to be tough, and we will get criticism for what we could have done, but we are where we are and we need to move forward. As my son would say, we have to ``suck it up, buttercup.'' I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana very much. I am happy to join my friend from Louisiana and my friend from Minnesota. I am a small business owner. I have been from my teenage years. My wife is a small business owner. I understand the plight they go through--how to raise capital, how to start a small business, how to take a dream to reality. Sometimes those dreams do not work out so well, and what happens next? As we sit here and talk about the short term versus the long term, in business you lay out a business plan. It is a long-term plan. Businesses that set a short-term plan are the ones that have those big banners that say: ``Going out of business.'' Those are the short-term planners in the business world. We debate today--and I think we are a lot closer than maybe the media likes to portray--but it is a difference between in the next 6 months do we deal with this issue and have another debt limit vote in 6 months from now, and another 6 months later, and 6 months, or do we plan for the long term, get our economy more stable, more certain, so businesses can invest and do the right thing? As I said at the beginning, any business that you see that has a short-term plan usually has a sign that says: ``Going out of business'' or ``Quitting.'' We are not going to quit. We are going to have a long-term plan. I heard earlier today my colleague and friend from Georgia, from the other side, who practiced in real estate, Senator Isakson. Both of us have been in the real estate business for many years. As he said, also, we are closer than people think we are. But we have some slight differences, ones we need to make sure we resolve and move to a long- term plan. Earlier this week, I challenged businesses that want to have a short- term plan to call my office; I would be happy to mention them on the floor of the Senate. I waited and I waited and I waited. No one--not one business--called my office and said: Give me a short-term plan. But I will tell you, several Alaskan businesses did call my office and say: Compromise. Get a long-term plan. Let me read to you from just a couple. JoeMarie Thomson from Anchorage owns Crucible Designs, a Web site design firm. She writes: I'm very concerned about the posturing surrounding the debt ceiling negotiations. As a small business owner I'm already seeing the effects of this uncertainty. My clients are also small business owners and so I am right in the line of fire on this one. I've heard from more than a few clients that if the U.S. defaults on the debt that the resulting interest rates will put them out of business. With this fear increasing the closer we get to August 2, it's really hurting my bottom line. Another one, Rita Fleckenstein from Anchorage, owns Rita's Family Daycare, a small daycare center for children. Her husband is retired Air Force. It is my sincere hope that you will try to influence your other Alaskan partners to take a balanced approach to solve the current budget crisis. I am a small business owner and loyal Alaskan voter and I am tired of all this posturing among the House members. She is referring to the debate that occurred last night. A man from Anchorage: I am a long time Alaskan, father of two, Iraq war veteran, small business owner, and my small business provides engineers and managers to the oil and gas industry in Alaska. I am a registered independent but am conservative in regards to budgetary issues. . . . As a small business owner, I would never jeopardize the well being of my family, my employees, or my clients in regards to a business agreement or transaction. There is always room to compromise and allow all parties engaged in the deal to walk away with the feeling they got a fair deal. . . . I fully expect increases in my taxes and am ok with that in order to continue to support our country. Another one, actually from someone I know well, who owns Arctic Wire and Rope, Eric McCallum. He won Alaskan manufacturer of the year in 1986 and employs 14 people. He is important to our oil and gas industry. Fortunately, Eric has no debt, but he is terribly concerned about the debt crisis. He says small businesses like his are the ``canary in the mineshaft'' and will be negatively impacted more than big businesses. Eric states: There will be far more impact on Main Street than Wall Street from this debt crisis. Eric adds that he is more than willing to pay his fair share to help balance the Federal budget. These have come in and in and in, and it is amazing to see what people are talking about in my State. There are 68,000 small businesses in Alaska. My wife is one of those. Almost 16,000 employ many employees. The fastest growing segment of our business community in Alaska is small business, growing by almost 31 percent over the last 6 years. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, to the Senator from Louisiana, as a small businessperson, all they want to see is certainty. They want the bickering, the partisan bickering to end. They want certainty so they can continue to invest and see their future. There are just some simple differences that I think the folks from both sides can sit down and work through. One is, clearly, how long should this debt limit increase go for? As I said earlier, if you do a short term, that is the business that is saying: I quit. I am out of business. If you do a long term, it gives certainty and opportunity to plan and build for the future. Should we have a vote up or down separate from the debt limit issue on a balanced budget amendment? It is a great debate. More than likely, we will probably have that debate. I have supported a balanced budget amendment before. But it is time we raise the debt limit to create the long-term certainty we need for our small business community not only in Alaska but throughout this country, where they are the backbone that will drive this economy in the right direction. It is an honor, again, to be down here with the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee. She has worked tirelessly on bill after bill. We were unsuccessful this year on a couple that were critical to small businesses because we could not get past the logjam. Maybe this will break the pathway, if we can get past this debt limit in a bipartisan way, where we can then bring many more other small business bills back to the floor because what I hear most often from Alaskans, beside the frustration of what is going on here, is they want us to focus on building this economy, to get regulation out of the way, to help invest in the needed things to ensure that businesses can create the jobs we desperately need not only for the people who are unemployed today, but for future generations. That is what we need. So, again, Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. Again, I thank my friend from Louisiana for the opportunity to say a few words but also for her leadership and her continued tenacity to fight for the small businessperson every single day. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, my friend and colleague from Colorado is always so passionate on the floor when it comes to the issues pertinent not only to his State and his country. He has laid out such a logical case on the debt of this Nation and why we need to deal with it. I will address the debt also. But I came down here, like the Senator from Colorado, to talk about the FAA reauthorization bill. I was not planning to come down. I was in my office. As Senators, we have lots of meetings, events, activities and photo ops--meet and greets, they call them. People come in and say hello and chit-chat take a few photographs with you. They are residents from your State. I was sitting there and having a great conversation with young people, four of them from Girls and Boys Nation here from the American Legion Auxiliary: Clara Farley, from Kodiak, Joseph Mueller from Healy, Derick Hanna from Palmer, and Marissa Torgerson from Anchorage. Then there was another young woman who was there, a young leadership student, Jocelyn Cayce from Juneau. You know, to have a ``photo op'' is what they call them. We shake hands and take some photos. It was interesting having this conversation. The first question they asked me was what was going to happen with the debt of this Nation. Before I elaborate on my thoughts and what I told them, I, first would like to talk about the FAA extension because they are both related. The FAA bill and what is going on with the debt is all related. It is related because of the House majority's inability to function and their inability to do their work. The FAA is a great example. I know the Senator from Colorado mentioned that the conference committee has not brought out a bill. What is amazing about this is the Senate appointed their conferees in April. For those who are watching, the way this works is the House passes a bill and the Senate passes a bill. They are not always exactly the same, so they go to a joint conference committee made up of Members from the House and Members from the Senate--Democrats and Republicans-- and they work out a compromise. The Senate appointed their Members to the conference committee in April. The House has not appointed anybody. The battle we are in is because of one person. There is one person who has decided that 4,000 people should be furloughed--about 80 in Alaska--to stop projects that are critical to the safety of air transportation. I can tell you there is no other State that depends on air transportation like Alaska, with 82 percent of our communities not able to be accessed by road, they are predominantly accessed by air. For one person in the House to decide he wants to play politics with aviation safety because he doesn't like something--oddly enough, the items he wanted to eliminate are from States that are represented by Democrats and chairmen of committees. It is unbelievable. I did not come here 2\1/2\ half years ago to play those games. I came here to do the work the people of Alaska sent me to do. Part of that work was to make sure the Federal Aviation Administration actually has a reauthorization they can operate under because they haven't had it since 2007. I was elected in 2008. There have been 20 short term extensions of the FAA's authority while the House and Senate try to pass legislation and work out the differences. The Senate did pass a bill. We did our work. We did it, and we did it with a lot of debate. I sit on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee with jurisdiction over the FAA. Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison, Democrat and Republican, worked in a bipartisan manner with all the members. The Senate passed our FAA bill. The House passed theirs, and now we are waiting for the House to appoint conferees. We are waiting for the House to do something. Not one person. That is not how this system should work. They need to appoint conferees so we can sit down and resolve these final minor issues. Instead the chairman in the House decides he knows best. Here is what happens: Yes, 4,000 FAA employees get furloughed all across this country. These are people who have mortgage payments to make and kids planning to go to college this fall, or maybe they are the only breadwinner in their homes--but 4,000 people are furloughed. There are 79 FAA employees in Alaska who have been furloughed. Compound that with the next piece of the equation. Part of the FAA reauthorization bill is to invest in our aviation infrastructure. I think I will hit 100,000-plus miles this year, maybe more, 125,000 miles flying back and forth from Washington to my home State, visiting communities all across my State. I pay a small fee like everyone who flies does. We pay for our airline tickets and a portion goes to the FAA, who then invests this money into making our runways and our air traffic facilities safer. It is the people who fly who pay for our aviation system, and their money goes to the FAA to pay for the improvements that we use to make sure we fly safely. It is not complicated. Yet what is happening because the FAA doesn't have the authority to collect this fee, is the airlines and passengers are getting a tax holiday. That fee is important. I will get back to that fee and what has happened with that money. First, without that money, we cannot do airport construction projects. It is all part of the system. In Alaska it is a pretty important piece. In Bethel, a project now has a stop-work order issued by the FAA because they cannot complete the project without an extension. As my friend from Colorado mentioned, Colorado has a short construction season, and we have a very short construction season in Bethel, Alaska. We are trying to build a project that improves the approach lights to make it safer for people to land at the Bethel Airport. That project has been stopped. There is no other access to Bethel except by air. Bethel is 400 miles from Anchorage, the largest city in the State, by air. We cannot drive to Bethel. That project has stopped because the House hasn't passed a clean FAA extension. Another project makes seismic improvements to the air traffic control tower in Anchorage. People say it is just a tower, what does it matter? The tower is old. It needs improvements. It is not only important for Alaska and the people who would work on the project, it is important for this country. We are the third busiest air cargo airport--in the sense of cargo throughput--in the world. We move products that are produced in this country and around the world through Anchorage. If you are shipping something to Europe or Asia and you are west of the Mississippi, the odds are you are coming through Anchorage's international airport. Almost 700 wide-body jets fly through Anchorage every single week carrying cargo. It is the third busiest airport in terms of cargo throughput in the world. It is an economic engine. It is a job creator. I remember almost 25 years ago when the idea came from a couple of companies, FedEx and UPS. They said: We will look at Anchorage as our international hub because of its location. Today it is a robust facility and many other airlines cargo carriers use our airport facilities. It is huge. Instead of the House doing their job and appointing conferees to resolve this issue, one person in the House decided he wanted to play politics over the life-safety of our air traffic system, the Federal aviation system, and now that project is not happening. Not only are the 79 FAA employees furloughed in Alaska, but projects in Bethel and Anchorage are not moving forward. So that means the private contractors--it is not government employees who make these improvements and build lighting systems or remodel the tower. It is private contractors who employ people who then pay mortgages and buy cars and spend money in the economy and help our economy move forward. This is clearly a job-killing action. That is what it is. They will say some other reasons, but that is what it is doing. It is killing jobs, and it is hurting America. Again, it costs more because when the construction season in Bethel is over in the next month or month and a half, we don't get to come back in November and say we are going to finish this project. We can't. The weather conditions don't allow it. What will happen is, next year the costs will go up because the private contractor will have to remobilize--I hear a lot from folks on the other side over there in the House talk about the private sector. I am from the private sector. I don't know how many of those guys worked in the private sector, but I have. That is where I made my living, and that is how my wife makes her living, from the private sector. They spout off about how they want to support the private sector. Well, pass the FAA reauthorization legislation that the private sector supports and wants moved forward for the creation of more jobs and the opportunity to make our air safer. Again, it is astounding to me how dysfunctional the House majority is and how they are unable to do their work. They complained a lot earlier this year that the Senate doesn't do their job, and we are not doing our work. We are doing our work. We passed the Military Construction-VA bill. We passed the FAA bill. We passed several things. They go over there and they die. They go over there, and they have one person who decides they know best. A lot of those guys ran in 2010 on the effort to open government, 72 hours to review bills, which is great. I have not seen it. They had some Rules Committee meeting earlier last night or whatever late night they did it to set the rules on what they are going to vote on in less than 12 or 13 hours. I am sure that has been notified to a lot of people. It is amazing they ran on the fact that they want to open government, the system is broken, and then it is so dysfunctional over there. The FAA bill, as I mentioned, these airlines collect fees that then go to the FAA to make sure all this happens. It is part of the fee we pay to travel. Now the FAA is not authorized to collect it, but what happened? Several of these airlines jacked up their fees to collect the money for their own. There is $200 million a week coming from consumers into the pockets of these airlines for their profit, not to improve the safety of the airports, which is what the money is supposed to be designed for. I will say Alaska Airlines--and I am proud to say Alaska Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, and Spirit Airlines are three examples of companies that did not do that. They did not jack up the price to the consumer for their own bottom line. Also, remembering that those fees are for the purpose of improving airports and not improving the corporate profits or the CEO's million-dollar-plus checks they get at the end of the year for the work they do. The problem is--something like this happened many years ago--we are not going to be able to get those resources back to make sure these airports are safer. I, of course, implore the airlines to do one of two things: Lower those fares they jacked up or put that money aside and work with Congress to make sure that money goes into the fund to ensure that we improve these airports. I challenge every one of those airlines that have done that. As a consumer who is watching this issue, you should be appalled that $200 million a week that you thought was going to improve the airports you fly through, it is not. It is going into the pockets for profit for some of these companies. Again, I point out Alaska Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, Spirit Airlines are a few of the only major airlines that are not doing that. I commend them for that. I commend them for doing the right thing by the consumer. I was originally coming down and going to talk--as I got inspired by the students sitting there--about the budget, but then I wanted to talk about the FAA. I want to get back to the budget. As I mentioned, these young people came to my office and asked the first question: What are we going to do about the debt? Great. It is the question of the day. What are we going to do? We can debate how we got here. Everyone got us here: Democrats, Republicans, current, past, everybody. We have a problem. We have a challenge. I know the Presiding Officer is new. You came here to solve problems, create solutions, not just play the politics and push it off for another day, but actually do some things. That is why people sent me here, and I know that is why they sent you here: to do the job the American people expect us to do-- I know Alaskans expect me to do. There is no question in my mind why we are here today. It is because, again, the House majority, I will point out, cannot do their job. They are unable to do their job. They are not dealing with reality. Do I want to add more debt to the Nation? No. No one does. As my colleague from Colorado earlier said--and I know the Presiding Officer--we have been working on ideas. One thing that is unique about the Senate is there is an effort here--it may not be as visible as the press would like to portray because they would like to see the battles, that is better press. There is a lot of bipartisan discussion going on. The Gang of 6, you can argue if that is good or bad, but the point is three Republicans, three Democrats sat down for months. In the Budget Committee, we sat down for months. We came up with proposals. We are talking to Republicans. Republicans are talking to Democrats. We are looking for solutions. We are trying to weed through this. The Senate is trying to do this. We are trying to solve this problem and create a solution that moves us forward. But there are several in the House majority over there who believe to drive off a cliff is good policy. I don't know, I don't think that is good policy. I would rather drive on the road, going somewhere. That is what we are trying to do over the next few days. As I think of the differences--and people say: Well, why don't you just take that deal or this deal? Here is the difference. They are fundamental. They are not complicated. The deal the leader, Speaker Boehner, has in the House is about $900 billion in reductions. It is short term. It has a joint committee to look to the long term. What is the Reid proposal? The Reid proposal, as it is now scored by CBO--the Congressional Budget Office, for those who are watching and wondering what all these things mean--is $2.2-plus trillion in reductions, almost 2\1/2\ times more than the House version, and it is long term. Here is why that is important. I am not voting for anything short term. Let me make that very clear to the Presiding Officer and others who might be watching. If we want to disrupt and continue to disrupt this economy, keep doing these shenanigans and keep doing these 2-, 3-, 4-month deals, that is disastrous to this economy. I have heard and talked to business leader after business leader, from associations, to individuals, to people back in my home State, and they say over and over: Don't do short term. Whatever you decide, give us certainty--certainty. The unique thing about the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House: Only we would describe long term as 16, 18 months because that is all we can do around here. But short term, as one can imagine, is 3, 4 months. That would be more disruptive to this economy than anything we can imagine because all we do as we shift it--and I can describe this because I understand this business. I have been in it. My wife is in it. Here is what happens. We will have this same debate in November, probably. Here is what happens in November. This is the biggest time for people who are buying. For retailers, this is the most important time--actually, back to school a little bit, but November through December is when people make their expenditures and are buying things, consuming, and spending money in our economy. But people always like to blame Democrats: It is all about government. I come from the private sector. As I said earlier, that is where I made my living. It is an important part of our economy. So here we are going to debate, create more uncertainty at the most important time, when consumers are going to try to judge what to do. What do they do? Do they spend a little bit extra for a gift for their friend? Do they go on that trip they were planning? Do they make that extra expenditure? Yet we will have the same debate. So long term is important--again, 16, 18 months, but that is better than the short-term plan. No businessperson has come to me--and I challenge any businessperson: Pick up the phone. Call me. Let me know. Tell me you want a short term, and I will be happy to come down here to the floor and say that. I will mention your company name. I will tell people: This company is interested in short term. I would be happy to do that. I am not going to get those calls because they know that is not the way to run a business, that is not the way to run a household, and that sure as heck should not be the way we run our government. So there is a clear difference. For all of those people who--I get a lot of pro and con on this issue, calling my office, sending me e- mails--for all of those people who say: Hey, just vote for the Boehner thing, I will tell them why I will not. I want people to understand clearly my position. It is not about, he is a Republican, I am a Democrat. That is irrelevant. It is short term. It is fewer spending reductions. It keeps us in turmoil. It doesn't move us forward. It is all about shenanigans and game-playing and politics. That is what he is presenting. Now, maybe the Reid proposal isn't perfect. I know there are Republicans who have some ideas here in the Senate who want to modify it. Great. But it is long term, it has more significant reductions, and it moves us down a path in the right direction. It is not perfect, but I can tell my colleagues that the idea they have over there will not work for this economy. I have probably spoken too long, but those kids from Juneau and Healy and Anchorage and Kodiak had a great question. When kids are asking that question and they say to me--and I give them the same exact presentation. I say: Here are the differences. I give them the papers and say: Here, you look at it. And they say to me: Why aren't we doing a long term, because these kids are now at an age where they are thinking about their future. They are not thinking about the next weekend; they are thinking about their future. They have a position we could learn a lot from around this place, I will tell my colleagues they made it very clear to me: Whatever you do, make it long term, because they are thinking about their future and where they want to be. It is an incredible commentary when we have kids who have more wherewithal in the sense of their knowledge of what should be done in the body we sit in today. It should wake us up. The last thing I will note is this. I think about what my colleague from Colorado said about the value of our position in this world when it comes to ensuring that people understand America will stand behind everything we do--the debt we do, the positions we take. As a matter of fact, it was so important, it was written into the Constitution that we should never question the ability to pay our bills. For those on the other side who like to spout off, and they pull out of their pocket the little portable Constitution--all of us get those; we all have those--and they cite the Constitution, sometimes they forget sections of it. I hope we don't forget this section. We should never be questioned in regard to our debt. We pay our bills. We stand behind what we do. That is what makes our country different from any country in this world. So I challenge them to get their job done, maybe on the FAA bill, maybe on this issue involving the debt, but the House needs to get their act together--the majority. Let me make that clear. The majority over there needs to get their job done, quit killing things over there, from jobs to legislation, and focus on the work people sent them here-- especially the group of 2010--but who sent me here and sent the Presiding Officer here--we were sent here to do a job. It is outrageous to me that we cannot move forward when it is so simple in the sense of a plan that gets us on a path that is long term and has better spending reductions. Maybe it is too logical. Maybe that is the problem around here: If it is too simple, too logical, it doesn't work. It has to be complicated with a lot of gamesmanship is the only way it works. I want to prove that wrong. I thank the Chair for allowing me the time to say a few words. Hopefully, the people who are watching us and listening will hear the real debate and cut through all the moment-in-time politicizing. Maybe, hopefully, they will hear those five kids whom I heard and will hear their concerns and what their position is. So, again, I thank the Chair for the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about progress in the nation of Croatia, which I was honored to visit recently. At the invitation of the Croatian Minister of Defense, I participated in what is known as the ``Croatian Summit,'' a gathering of leaders from Eastern Europe. The theme of this year's summit was: ``A New Decade for Southeast Europe: Finalizing the Transition.'' Less than 15 years after a terrible ethnic war that devastated Croatia, the nation is making enormous progress. It is rapidly making a transition to a market-based economy and its government leaders are committed to a strong and lasting partnership with the United States. They are a great partner of ours in Afghanistan and in other trouble spots across the globe. That is personally important to me because 100 years ago this year, my grandfather emigrated from Croatia to this country. John Begic--then it was spelled B-E-G-I-C--then 17 years old, left his farm and eventually settled in northern Minnesota's Iron Range. John Begic and his young bride, Anna Martinich had four children. Their youngest, Nicholas, made his way to America's new frontier of Alaska even before we were a state. He was my father. Nick Begich was an educator and eventually was elected Alaska's lone Member of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1970. I am honored to follow in his footsteps as a Member of the Senate, where I am the only Member of Croatian decent. My recent visit to Dubrovnik was my first to Croatia. I was honored to represent this body at the summit, along with officials from the State Department and U.S. Embassy. I was impressed with the great progress underway there, as well as the excellent job being performed by our embassy personnel. There are enormous opportunities for partnership between the United States and Croatia, and I am anxious to pursue those. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks at the Croatia Summit be printed in the Record to document my participation in the summit and the strong partnership between our nations.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to say thank you for the opportunity to put on the Record my experiences in Croatia this last weekend and, again, seeing the country after 15 years ago going through incredible devastation to where they are today. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about legislation I am introducing today that would repeal an ill-fitting and broad-reaching rule that limits not only timber harvest and mining but important renewable energy projects in Southeast Alaska. In March of this year, a Federal District Court ruling set aside the 2003 Tongass Exemption and reinstated the application of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in the Tongass National Forest. This decision means that the Tongass National Forest is now managed by a cookie-cutter rule imposed upon all national forests rather than by the 2008 Tongass Land Management Plan developed by Forest Service personnel under a wide reaching multi-year collaboration with Alaskans. This will have a severe impact and reverse efforts to revitalize local communities and increase economic diversification throughout the region. Over the past few months, I have spoken with Tongass Forest Supervisor Forest Cole and Department of Agriculture staff about what flexibility they have under the rule. I appreciate that Secretary Vilsack and the plaintiffs in this most recent court case recognize the importance of hydropower development, mining and personal use wood policies to the economy of Southeast Alaska. However, what I have read of their settlement agreement doesn't offer any certainty that there won't be more challenges and delays. Our experience over the past decade suggests there will be. With lots of demands on the Tongass Forest, the Forest Service needs greater flexibility to address these issues while crafting a reasonably sized timber sale program that keeps the few existing mills alive and allows for modest expansion into second growth markets. Unemployment in the rural portions of Southeast Alaska currently averages more than 15 percent. Energy costs in these non-hydropower communities are too high as well. Instead of adding options, the roadless rule takes them away. It is time once and for all to do away with the rule in Alaska. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murkowski, for joining me as a cosponsor.