Mark Begich

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I recognize a great Alaskan as she celebrates her 90th birthday at the end of this month. Katie Hurley was born and raised in Juneau, AK, and embodies so much of what makes Alaska great. She is a living history of the State of Alaska. Katie was there at the very beginning of the push for Alaska Statehood, serving Governor Ernest Gruening in Alaska's territorial days. Katie served as chief clerk to the Alaska Constitutional Convention in Fairbanks during the very cold winter of 1955-1956. With a manual typewriter and mimeograph machine, she had minutes and amendments ready every morning for the delegates. It is Katie's voice you can hear in the audio recordings of the final roll call vote of the Constitutional Convention. Katie's public service to Alaska transcends every level of government. Governor Bill Egan appointed Katie to the State Board of Education where she served for 7 years. She served to the term limit under Governor Egan but was reappointed by Governor Jay Hammond. She has been elected to the Alaska State Legislature and the Matanuska Telephone and Matanuska Electric association boards. She embodies completely what it means to be a public servant and community member. It is appropriate Katie's birthday falls during Women's History Month. Katie is a role model for so many Alaskan women. She was the first woman in Alaska to win her party's nomination for statewide office. Katie was the first executive director of the Alaska Commission on the Status of Women and was appointed by Governor Steve Cowper to the Human Rights Commission in 1987, serving twice as chair. She is still active in the Alaska chapter of the National Organization of Women. In the past, she would grab her knitting--baby blankets for her grandchildren--to attend legislative hearings on women's reproductive health rights. She has been a tenacious advocate for title IX funding and education equity. Katie is a breast cancer survivor of 21 years and still participates in the annual Alaska Run for Women to raise money for breast cancer research. Last year--at age 89--she finished the 5-mile course with her team. Anyone who knows Katie understands she is never one to slow down. Her enthusiasm is infectious, and she still spends time imparting Alaska's history to young Alaskans and reminding all Alaskans of the common goals we shared at statehood and the spirit in which our State constitution was drafted. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Katie and her decades of service to Alaska on her 90th birthday.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Space Available Equity Act. Members and retirees of the National Guard and Reserve, their families, and surviving military spouses make great sacrifices for our nation. However, too often these individuals do not receive the benefits they have earned for their service. In Alaska, the National Guard conducts more search and rescue missions in the most challenging terrain than any other state. They save lives every day in their state role and frequently deploy just like their active duty counter-parts. The demands on our reserve component have been higher than ever before. Yet members of the reserve components and ``gray area'' retirees, National Guardsman or Reservist eligible for retirement but under the age of 60, have limited travel privileges on Department of Defense aircraft under current regulation. Their space-available travel benefits are restricted to the continental United States and are not extended to their dependents, unlike active duty members and retirees. Surviving spouses of a military member eligible for retired pay retain no space-available travel privileges at all after the death of their spouse, despite having made a lifetime commitment to the military or in many cases, lost their loved one in war. In Alaska, we understand how important surviving spouses are. The Tragedy Assistance Program, or as it's more commonly known--TAPS, was founded in my State. To correct these inequities, I am re-introducing the National Guard, Reserve, ``Gray Area'' Retiree, and Surviving Spouse Space-available Travel Equity Act. This bill will give these deserving individuals comprehensive and equitable space-available travel privileges on Department of Defense aircraft. The bill is endorsed by the National Guard Association of the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving parity to our reserve component members and surviving military spouses. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Space Available Equity Act. Members and retirees of the National Guard and Reserve, their families, and surviving military spouses make great sacrifices for our nation. However, too often these individuals do not receive the benefits they have earned for their service. In Alaska, the National Guard conducts more search and rescue missions in the most challenging terrain than any other state. They save lives every day in their state role and frequently deploy just like their active duty counter-parts. The demands on our reserve component have been higher than ever before. Yet members of the reserve components and ``gray area'' retirees, National Guardsman or Reservist eligible for retirement but under the age of 60, have limited travel privileges on Department of Defense aircraft under current regulation. Their space-available travel benefits are restricted to the continental United States and are not extended to their dependents, unlike active duty members and retirees. Surviving spouses of a military member eligible for retired pay retain no space-available travel privileges at all after the death of their spouse, despite having made a lifetime commitment to the military or in many cases, lost their loved one in war. In Alaska, we understand how important surviving spouses are. The Tragedy Assistance Program, or as it's more commonly known--TAPS, was founded in my State. To correct these inequities, I am re-introducing the National Guard, Reserve, ``Gray Area'' Retiree, and Surviving Spouse Space-available Travel Equity Act. This bill will give these deserving individuals comprehensive and equitable space-available travel privileges on Department of Defense aircraft. The bill is endorsed by the National Guard Association of the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving parity to our reserve component members and surviving military spouses. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr President, last week I had the privilege to travel to the Army's National Training Center to see the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Alaska train. I was amazed at what our soldiers do to prepare for the defense of our country. Despite their upcoming deployment to Afghanistan in May, these Arctic Warriors were not thinking about themselves. They were thinking about their families. Over and over I heard how important their family's security and support system was to them, especially as they prepared to deploy. To help out our military families today I am pleased to introduce the Service Members Permanent Change of Station Relief Act with my cosponsors Senator Patty Murray, Senator Barbara Boxer, and Senator Lisa Murkowski. This bill will improve financial security for our military families by increasing reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses they often incur during government directed moves. First, the bill will provide reimbursement to military families for costs incurred transporting a second car on a change of permanent duty station to or from Alaska, Hawaii or Guam. As with their counterparts in civilian life, many military families today own and rely on a second vehicle to work, take care of their children and meet day-to-day needs of the family. By doing this, we can save our military families $2,000 in personal expenses they pay to transport a second car. Additionally, the bill increases the gas mileage reimbursement rate to $.51 per mile during a move to allow for compensation of all costs and depreciation resulting from use of a personal vehicle for a government move. Our military families make great personal sacrifices for our country. Providing the Arctic Warriors and other military members a little peace of mind about the financial security of their families is the least we can do. I ask my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr President, last week I had the privilege to travel to the Army's National Training Center to see the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Alaska train. I was amazed at what our soldiers do to prepare for the defense of our country. Despite their upcoming deployment to Afghanistan in May, these Arctic Warriors were not thinking about themselves. They were thinking about their families. Over and over I heard how important their family's security and support system was to them, especially as they prepared to deploy. To help out our military families today I am pleased to introduce the Service Members Permanent Change of Station Relief Act with my cosponsors Senator Patty Murray, Senator Barbara Boxer, and Senator Lisa Murkowski. This bill will improve financial security for our military families by increasing reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses they often incur during government directed moves. First, the bill will provide reimbursement to military families for costs incurred transporting a second car on a change of permanent duty station to or from Alaska, Hawaii or Guam. As with their counterparts in civilian life, many military families today own and rely on a second vehicle to work, take care of their children and meet day-to-day needs of the family. By doing this, we can save our military families $2,000 in personal expenses they pay to transport a second car. Additionally, the bill increases the gas mileage reimbursement rate to $.51 per mile during a move to allow for compensation of all costs and depreciation resulting from use of a personal vehicle for a government move. Our military families make great personal sacrifices for our country. Providing the Arctic Warriors and other military members a little peace of mind about the financial security of their families is the least we can do. I ask my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the work they have done. As I said yesterday, it is fairly exceptional, considering the time it has taken to get to where we are. I understand the amendment that is being proposed and the goal of it, and I have been one of those who have supported the deficit commission, which brought forward some recommendations on how to manage this budget. I have supported multiple efforts on this floor to reduce and manage the budget in the overall scheme of how we move down to sustainability regarding the finances of this country. But this is one bill where you have to take into account not only what is being proposed but what it does and what it will impact. I will use my State as an example. When you think about Alaska, there is no question that when it comes to air travel, no other State has the kind of rural and extended air travel as we have in Alaska. I talked about the Essential Air Service Program yesterday. Forty-four communities are affected by the funding for this program, which serves people who are not next door to any airport and who are not only not just a few miles from an airport, but in some cases, from their airport to a hub, it might be 1,200 miles. So the work and the resources of the Essential Air Service is critical for us to not only conduct business, to move people back and forth between communities, but for medical services. It is really the lifeblood for our communities. This amendment would literally wipe that out or reduce it to such a point that it would be impossible for us to make it economical for some of these airports to operate and some of these flight services that bring the only service to these communities, allowing them to survive. When you think about NextGen, if we went to the 2008 levels, NextGen was just in the beginning stages. This is an important investment. And it is not the Federal Government that was anxious to get it done right away. We had to actually push Congress--the chairman may remember this--we had to push the Federal Government to move this forward. Why? Because it was the private sector that came to us. The people in the private sector came to us and said: It is important that the Federal Government move this forward, expedite this resource, help us move this new technology forward to help save fuel, save time, increase capacity at our airports, and make it a better business operation for the private sector airports. So when I see this amendment, my view is that it is a job- killing amendment. This wasn't a decision where the Commerce Committee said: Well, let's just move this up a few years because we think the government should do this right away. The private sector came to us because they wanted to invest in this new technology. But they are not going to make the investment until there is certainty from the Federal Government on their part of the arrangement. So that is what we are doing. We are doing that in this bill. So this amendment, in my view, is truly a job-killing amendment. Then I look at the airport improvements, and I was listening to the chairman, who was talking about the contracted services. So I quickly looked at the list affecting Alaska, and I saw Kodiak. Kodiak is where the largest Coast Guard base in this country is. Kodiak is also the contracted services tower. I don't know how that will affect the Coast Guard. I would be very nervous about what it might do. This type of amendment may be well meaning in the sense of how we all are going to sit here--and I left the Budget Committee meeting to come here. The Budget Committee is where we are now talking about how to plan this budget in a holistic way, not nitpick it like this. The amendment may be well intended to get control of the budget, but it does not understand the impact. Again, airport improvement is another piece. I would challenge the individual who sponsored the amendment. If he has been to Alaska, great. I would love to take him to a couple of those airports. There is now a great reality show about flying in Alaska. It is so dangerous to fly in Alaska that they had to make a reality show about it. So I would encourage everyone to turn that on and see why NextGen, which was pioneered in Alaska, is so important and why this investment the Federal Government is making is so important for the private sector to have a better tool to utilize in transportation in this country. Again, airport improvements in my State are critical. It could be anything from refinishing a runway to just having a gravel runway--one that brings food and supplies, medical provisions, and just moving people in and out. It is a critical piece of the equation. The phrase the Chairman used about the amendment was that he was less than enthusiastic about it. I don't like the amendment as it is written today, specifically around this bill. I am anxious to get to the bigger debate, and I hope, once this bill is cleared off, we will get to the big debate of how we manage the deficit of this country, how we look at it long term. I know I will hear that this is a start, this is the way we have to start, and that would make sense if this bill was started with that intent in mind. But in 2007, when this authorization expired, NextGen was just an idea. Well, this is a new investment we have to make in order to make our air travel safer, more economical, save fuel, and respond to the private sector that has asked us to get off the dime and create certainty so they can make the investments that will make their business model more effective. Again, I had no intention to speak today. I was in the Budget Committee, but I wanted to come down and say a few words.

Mr. BEGICH. I again thank the chairman for the time, allowing me to say a few words from Alaska's perspective. And I would again emphasize that this amendment is a job-killing amendment.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. It is easy to call this wasteful if you do not understand the needs of rural communities. They do not have any other means of transportation. When he introduced the amendment, my friend in Arizona suggested that folks are bypassing Essential Air Service flights to drive to a hub and the hub airports, where they can get cheaper fares to more destinations. Consider how that applies in my State. For the community of Adak, in the Aleutian Islands, the connection to the nearest medium hub is Anchorage. I laugh a little bit, because I want to put this truly in perspective. It is almost 1,200 miles. So if one wants to, as Senator McCain says, drive to the hub, they can't do that because they are here. In order to get to here, they have to go by air or catch a boat, assuming the weather is good. So his analysis that the people are just driving off to these hubs and catching flights that are cheaper is inaccurate. He is unfamiliar, obviously, with what is going on in Alaska. To put the number in perspective, it is about the same distance from Los Angeles to Houston, except, unlike Los Angeles and Houston, there are no roads between these two places. I agree with Senator McCain that we need to do something to address our Nation's budget deficit. Before I started this conversation, I made some comments on things I have done, and I will continue to work on that. But I don't believe we should balance the Federal budget on the backs of communities and people facing some of the highest costs of living and the toughest conditions in the country, and that is exactly what the McCain amendment would do. When Senator McCain introduced this amendment, he cited a July 2009 GAO report and suggested that the EAS has outlived its usefulness. I have that very same report. Sometimes when people make speeches, they read selectively. I wish to go to page 2 of this report. There, the GAO said: Our review focused on communities within the continental United States-- We like to refer to them as the lower 48-- that received EAS subsidized service. We focused our review on these communities because the requirements for communities in Alaska are different than for communities in other states, and airports outside the contiguous states are not representative of the program in the rest of the country. I can't speak for Senator McCain's constituents in the four communities in Arizona that receive Essential Air Service. Maybe the folks of Kingman, Page, Prescott, and Show Low, AZ, who receive EAS don't think it is necessary. I am not sure if Senator McCain has checked with them; maybe that is how they feel. But I can speak for rural Alaskans who have contacted my office, who are terrified about this amendment and what it would mean for their community, for their way of life, for the very health and well-being of their families. We are in the midst of a recovery from an economic collapse. It makes no sense to eliminate a valuable program that helps rural America and puts small business to work. This amendment would take us in the wrong direction. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I want to talk on Essential Air Service, but I do want to make a couple of comments after hearing my colleague from the other side talk about the budget. I want to assure him, there are some moderates over here who understand the value and the managing of the budget. If someone comes from Alaska, you know we support gun rights, oil and gas drilling, we support a lot of things as Democrats that the Senator may not be aware of. But the other thing is, leadership is about all of us working together. I look for the President's budget, but that does not mean we are going to sit here and wait for him to make all of the decisions. We have a responsibility here. I know last year, I sat here and voted for the Sessions-McCaskill amendment that would have reduced some of the spending, controlled some of the spending. We could not get all of the votes on the other side to make it happen. I supported every dime that came back from the TARP repayment to go to pay off the deficit, which now we are close to 80 percent or better of that money coming back, maybe as much as 90 percent. I supported the Gregg and Wyden legislation, a bipartisan effort to deal with tax reform to get corporate rates from the second highest in the world back to about midstream; lowering the six individual rates down to three rates; making it simplified so people can fill out their taxes on one form, and getting rid of a bunch of loopholes. It is the combination of all of us that will create leadership. It is not one person; it is not one President. It is Republicans and Democrats and Independents sitting on the floor making tough decisions, not a bunch of political speeches. Let me end there and get to the topic I wanted to talk about. At some point I will come down here and talk about the budget as it is rolled out. I know on the Budget Committee we will have plenty of presentations on that. I came down here to talk about Essential Air Service. I want to thank Chairman Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison for their leadership on this very important bill. They have worked tirelessly to pass this bill in the 111th Congress, and they are again putting in long hours on it this year. The bill before the Senate is an incredibly important piece of legislation. The FAA bill is about creating jobs. It puts Americans to work rebuilding our Nation's deteriorating airport infrastructure. It modernizes our air traffic control system to reduce congestion in the skies, and it makes our Nation's air space safer and more efficient. There are so many important reasons why we should succeed in passing this legislation, which passed the Senate 93 to 0 last year. Even in a year that was marked with contentious and partisan battles, this FAA bill was truly a bipartisan piece of legislation, and this can largely be credited to the hard work of Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison, and their staffs. This bill has been delayed far too long. We are currently on the 17th short-term extension since the last comprehensive FAA bill expired in 2007. We owe it to the American people to help reduce airport delays, put Americans back to work, and provide the 21st century air space our Nation needs to facilitate commerce and compete in a world economy. This bill is especially important for States such as mine. Aviation is the lifeblood of Alaska. It is truly our highway in the sky. We have six times more pilots and 16 times more planes per capita than the rest of the country. In Alaska small planes are the equivalent of minivans in the lower 48. They are how Alaskans get around. I wish to talk briefly about the Essential Air Service Program, which is vital to my constituents. My friend from Arizona has introduced an amendment which would repeal the Essential Air Service Program. I truly have grave concerns for what this would mean, not only for my rural Alaskans but for rural Americans as a whole. The Essential Air Service Program originated at the same time as airline deregulation in 1978. When airline deregulation passed, it gave airlines almost total freedom to determine which markets to serve domestically and what fares to charge for that service. This is not a bad thing. Some good things came out of airline deregulation. It fostered competition among airlines. It brought down ticket prices for many air routes between large urban centers. But when Congress passed airline deregulation, it also recognized that something needed to be done to protect rural communities. They were not the most profitable routes for air carriers, so the idea was to maintain a minimum level of service. That is where the Essential Air Service Program came in. The program provided modest subsidies to air carriers to provide service to communities that would have otherwise lost all air service through deregulation. Since 1978, the Essential Air Service Program has successfully guaranteed small communities that were served by certified air carriers before deregulation that this would maintain a minimum level of scheduled air service. The program has been a vital link for rural America. There are very real consequences to eliminating this program for my constituents, especially in the 44 communities served by the EAS Program. Let me show you this poster. This poster shows Alaska's limited road infrastructure. Eighty-two percent of Alaska's communities are not on the road system and rely on aviation as a primary means of transportation, for goods, people, mail. It all has to come by aircraft. Let me not confuse those who are watching. We did not oversize the State of Alaska. Alaska does not sit down here by California or in a little box somewhere. This is actually the size of Alaska in comparison to the lower 48. The red lines show the road network. You can imagine the road network that would be shown in the lower 48. But this is all of the road network we have. So for the rest of the State it is by air or boat. People in communities face some of the highest costs of living in the country. Rural Alaskans cannot drive to a Safeway when they need something. There are no roads, and there are no Safeways. If you eliminate the EAS Program, it is going to drive these prices even higher in rural Alaska. Gary Williams, from the village of Kake, sent me a letter about what the McCain amendment would mean for his community. By the way, the EAS ensures Kake receives at least three weekly flights from a small Cessna 208 aircraft during the winter. Again, this is not a jetliner. Maybe in Alaska we think a Cessna 208 is a jetliner, but that is a very small plane. Gary Williams in Kake says: I frankly cannot imagine being without service. It would isolate and cripple us on many levels. In addition to eliminating the only source of transportation for many communities, Senator McCain's amendment would actually put people out of work. It would hurt small businesses in Alaska and across this country. It is truly a job-killing amendment. I wish to read from a letter my office received from the owner of PenAir. PenAir is a family-owned business, started in 1955 by a young 19-year-old teenager named Orin Seybert. When Orin started his business in 1955, he had a two-seat Taylorcraft and a four-seat Piper Tri-Pacer. Orin is a great example of the pioneering spirit that embodies Alaska. Over the years Orin grew the business into a successful regional air carrier, serving communities throughout rural Alaska. PenAir is now run by Orin's son Danny. This is a letter from Danny Seybert, the president of PenAir: For many of these communities, PenAir is the only scheduled passenger air service link to the rest of the world. He goes on to say if the McCain amendment is passed, it: would have a devastating effect on many remote communities in Alaska, on many air carriers who provide those communities with air transportation services, and on Alaska's economy. Here is an e-mail my office received from the Copper Valley Air Service. Copper Valley flies two EAS routes serving the communities of McCarthy and May Creek. The e-mails read: If this amendment is approved, it will put Copper Valley Air Service out of business. It will cost eight jobs. This cannot pass. This is an e-mail from Bruce Phillips, the chief pilot of Wings of Alaska: Repealing EAS would ``not only diminish jobs and raise costs, but also potentially abolish air service to some communities entirely. Villages in Southeast Alaska have no roads and limited, if any, ferry service making air service a lifeline. This is how they receive everything from medication to mail to groceries as well as how they travel for medical, personal and business.'' I have got a stack of these letters that my office has received in the past few days from communities that would lose air service if the McCain amendment is adopted, from individuals in the communities who are terrified about what this would mean for the price of goods in their communities, from those worried about the cost of air travel if they get sick and they need to seek medical attention at a hospital, and from small air carriers worried that they will either have to lay off employees or go under altogether. I ask unanimous consent that some of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend from Oklahoma to talk about a commonsense piece of legislation. I come to the floor pretty often to talk about the deficit, and I wish to talk about something very specific we can do to address this matter. The Orphaned Earmarks Act would rescind earmarks that remain 90 percent or more unused 9 years after being appropriated. In early January, USA Today published an article examining 20 years of earmarks that have not been spent. According to the analysis: ``In at least 3,649 of those earmarks, not a single dollar had gone toward its intended purpose'' and ``Many of the orphan earmarks also count against a state's share of federal highway funds and have taken billions of dollars away from state transportation departments across the nation.'' During the past 20 years, orphan earmarks reduced the amount of money States would have received in Federal highway funding by almost $7.5 billion. That is $7.5 billion that States could have used to replace obsolete bridges, repair aging roads, and bring jobs to rural areas. As all of us know, when lawmakers earmark money, even if it is never spent for pet highway projects, that money still reduces what States receive from the Federal Government. In my own State of Alaska, $187 million in funding was lost out in the past 20 years because of orphaned earmarks. I know some of my colleagues are concerned about States losing out on money we all could use, especially these days, but let's not worry. I don't want to take away your earmarks that help communities in need and help create jobs. We are talking about earmarks that have been abandoned for more than 10 years and are just sitting there like uncashed checks. Dr. Coburn and I have addressed this in our legislation. We have built in a 12-month period--I repeat, a 12-month period--for agency heads to make sure earmarks can be used before rescinding. On that note, I wish to make something else clear. I do not personally support an earmark moratorium. I know my friend from Oklahoma and I disagree on this earmark funding, but I believe it is vital to my home State of Alaska. We have unique needs and have relied on this critical funding from day one to support health, safety, and jobs. What I have a problem with is wasteful spending that could have otherwise been used for a project or to cut the deficit. Our legislation requires the Director of OMB to submit to Congress and publicly post on the OMB Web site an annual report that includes a listing and accounting for earmarks with unobligated balances summarized by agencies, including the amount of the original earmark, the amount of the unobligated balances, and the year the funding expires; the number of rescissions resulting from this section and the annual savings resulting from this section for the previous fiscal year; finally, a listing and an accounting for earmarks provided to Federal agencies scheduled to be rescinded at the end of the current fiscal year. Senator Feingold offered an amendment last March to the FAA bill to rescind any DOT earmarks that remained 90 percent or more unobligated for 9 years after being appropriated, with the possibility of holding funds 1 more year for earmarks the agency head believed would be funded within 12 months. Because Senator Feingold had modified the legislation to reflect concerns by Senator Boxer and Senator Murray, the Senate voted 87 to 11 to pass this amendment. However, as we all know, the FAA bill did not pass last year. The Coburn-Begich bill is modeled after a Bush administration proposal from 2008 and would have rescinded any highway and bridge earmark funds from the 1998 highway bill, TEA-21, that had less than 10 percent of the funds spent or obligated. That proposal would have saved about $626 million, including $389 million in 152 earmarks that had no funding obligated a decade after passing. The Coburn-Begich bill targets all orphaned earmarks, not just those in the highway bill. Let me conclude. I know my friend from Oklahoma is here to speak as well. I will tell my colleagues that when I became mayor in 2003 in Anchorage, AK, we looked at what all of our bonds voters had voted on year-in and year-out, and we looked at all the projects. What we found was that sizable amounts were being spent on projects where they were intended, but there was another percentage that for years had just been lying there for a variety of reasons. Maybe the project didn't pan out, maybe they didn't get enough money from another source or the project just vanished from the books because of public opposition to it. But what we found was we were passing bonds for projects that never went forward. So we cleaned the bonds up when I was mayor. Then we did one other thing which I think this legislation now on the Federal level really focuses on, not only to make sure we clean up the books but also, when you have money, to make it very clear that we need to spend the money on the project for which it was identified. We made sure those projects that were on that bond, that voters voted for, that they put their taxpayer money toward, that 75 percent or more of those projects would be completed or substantially underway by the end of the year. That was important to make sure taxpayers knew their dollars were being used-- not just forwarded or put away in an account somewhere and not having a project that they thought was happening. So I think this is a good piece of legislation. It brings fiscal responsibility to the money that is out there. When we think about it, if we have a piece of legislation, an earmark, that has not been utilized--90 percent of it not utilized for 10 years or more--there is no reason we should have that money in some bank account in some agency somewhere hidden away. It should come back and go toward the deficit. So I yield the floor at this time for my colleague from Oklahoma. I am honored to be able to join him in this effort to bring--I will use my words--fiscal sanity to this effort of trying to figure out how to manage this Federal Government's budget in a better way.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, as someone who has been in the real estate business for almost 30 years, there is enormous opportunity. I know that when I was mayor, we put more of the lands--we are not talking parks; we are talking about just surplus old buildings and sites that are no longer in use--we put them back into operation because not only will it save the Federal Government money in the sense of getting that surplus property off the books, but what we end up doing is turning that into economic development companies for those communities. The private sector will come in and revitalize it and use it. There are many ideas out there. I thank the Senator for the opportunity to sponsor this with him. As the Senator said, $500 million is the minimum. I think it is close to $1 billion just on this one idea. I yield the floor.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for joining me. I will tell my colleague, whether you look at--you are right, this should not be controversial. It should be easy. I mean, it is like if you receive a check and it sits there for 10 years, I can guarantee my colleagues, if you are in private business, as I have been, you have written that off already. It is gone. In this situation, what we are saying is that there is $500 million--I think you are right; when it is all tallied up, it is probably closer to $1 billion-- sitting out there. We did this once before. We had great support on a much more narrow focus. If we did this on a regular basis, the opportunity is unlimited. I wish to thank the Senator. I have sat in the Presiding Officer's chair many times and listened to the presentations of the Senator from Oklahoma regarding the budget. We may not always agree, but when we find agreements, here is an opportunity. This is an easy one, by the way. There are others, as the Senator knows and I know, regarding surplus property the Federal Government has that is under incredible disrepair, not being realized. From my real estate experience, I have seen this, and there is an enormous amount of resources there that could be turned back to the private sector for future development. That could actually grow this economy.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, to commemorate February 2011 as Black History Month, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of African Americans to the cultural, technological, and social evolution of our Nation and American democracy. Each year, the Association for the Study of African American Life and History sponsors Black History Month in February because two great men of historical significance were born in this month: Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, and Frederick Douglass, a noted Black social reformer and abolitionist. Their actions greatly forwarded the cause of equality for all African Americans. Given the association has chosen ``African Americans and the Civil War'' as their 2011 theme, it seems fitting to briefly contemplate initiatives of these two reformers who are from that era. President Lincoln is forever linked to the momentous Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 which 3.1 million slaves living in States that were in rebellion against the Union were declared ``forever free'' and also allowed to join the military. The year before, Mr. Lincoln abetted the cause of freedom by forbidding Army officers from returning fugitive slaves and signed a law declaring the Federal Government would compensate slave owners who freed their slaves. Frederick Douglass escaped slavery and became a leader of the abolitionist movement. He was a great orator and writer and after the war he was involved in Reconstruction efforts. His energies were devoted to helping America truly become a place where all citizens enjoyed liberty. Mr. Douglass once said, ``I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.'' In observing Black History month, it would be impossible to author an exhaustive list of all influential African Americans. Yet one such individual in recent history stands out: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In January, we celebrated his achievement of peaceful protest in furthering civil rights for minorities. Dr. King's accomplishments represent but a fraction of the positive impact African Americans have had on our society. I also note the United Nations has proclaimed 2011 the International Year for People of African Descent. Their resolution calls for worldwide cooperation to further their full enjoyment of economic, cultural, social, civil and political rights, participation in political, economic, social and cultural aspects of society and promotion of a greater knowledge of and respect for their diverse heritage and culture. I agree with these sentiments and urge Americans to continue to fulfill the potential of promise that our Nation offers everyone.

Mr. BEGICH

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 Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 26, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH

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

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 366, which is at the desk.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I understand that S. 192, introduced earlier today by Senator DeMint, is at the desk and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to remember the life of a remarkable man, Mr. Carl Bradford Brooks of Fairbanks, AK, who passed away on November 27, 2010. He was 58. Born on October 25, 1952, Brad was a lifelong Fairbanksan who graduated from Lathrop High School in 1970. Brad was always proud he was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1547 and the Public Employees Local 71 unions. During his career, he worked on building the Trans-Alaska pipeline and maintained communication infrastructure across the entire State of Alaska. Brad fully embraced the spirit of volunteerism as he tirelessly helped make Fairbanks a better place. As a founding member of the Interior Democrats, Brad helped shape the political atmosphere of Interior Alaska for the Alaska Democratic Party for over 30 years. At the time of his passing, Brad was serving on the Executive Committee as communications secretary. Coming from a family of Eagle Scouts, Brad earned the rank and continued a life of service to the Boy Scouts of America. Thousands of volunteer hours, community service projects and laughs were shared with the boys of Troop 10, the Midnight Sun Council and Lost Lake Scout Camp. Several awards were presented to Brad for his Scouting service including awards from the AFL-CIO and the local Silver Beaver Award. Many young men were mentored, enriched, and encouraged to participate in a life of service to community by Brad's example. Every year, Brad would lend many hours of his communications expertise assisting the Yukon Quest International Sled Dog Race between Whitehorse, British Columbia, Canada, and Fairbanks, AK. Brad assisted with the set up and coordination of trail communication necessary to allow mushers in remote areas to communicate with race officials and emergency responders. Lastly, but most importantly, Brad was devoted to his wife of 32 years, Drena McIntyre, and his son Tyler, daughter Graehl, and granddaughter Sylvia-Lei. A final farewell to Brad included a rock n roll wake at Big Daddy's Bar-B-Q in Fairbanks. Many came dressed in Brad's favorite attire: either Carhartts overalls, a Hawaiian Aloha shirt or and a tie-dye Tee shirt. His many friends and loved ones maintained the ideals of fun and companionship which Brad Brooks exemplified throughout his whole life. Condolences go out to his family and to all others who were close to him.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. I thank you, Mr. Baucus. I appreciate the Senator's support on this issue, and look forward to working with him and my other Senate colleagues to pass this much needed piece of legislation as soon as an opportunity presents itself in the new Congress.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to discuss an issue of importance to Alaska Native communities. The legislation currently under consideration would extend through 2011 the enhanced tax incentive for donations of qualified conservation easements. Unfortunately, Alaskan Native communities are ineligible under this provision and, as a result, do not have access to the tools they need to permanently protect historical or critical habitat. For thousands of years, Alaska has been home to Native communities, whose rich heritages, languages, and traditions have thrived in the region's unique landscape. These communities continue to engage in a traditional subsistence lifestyle and harvest their food from the land. Nearly 70 percent of Native communities' food comes from the land and, for many communities, subsistence is an economic necessity considering the cost and difficulty involved in purchasing food. I, along with my colleague, Ms. Murkowski, have proposed legislation, S. 1673, which would provide parity. Our proposal is imperative to the long-term survival of Alaska-Native communities and Alaska's nature resources, which makes this critical legislation timely. Development pressures are increasingly significantly in many parts of Alaska. This legislation will allow private land owned by Alaska Native communities to be protected, while facilitating development that will spur needed economic activity and job growth. We have worked with the Senate Finance Committee over the past 2 years to ensure that this provision is ready for enactment. It is widely supported by the conservation community. I was hopeful it would be included in the end-of-the-year tax package the Senate is currently considering. Since the Senate was unable to address Alaska Native conservation parity before the end of the 111th Congress, I would be interested in learning, from the chairman of the Finance Committee, what his plans are for advancing the proposal in the 112th Congress.