Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to note some good news about the state of our American economy. Hard work clearly remains. We are still recovering from the deepest slump since the Great Depression. But I think it is time to appreciate our recent progress.

Over the past few days and weeks, there has been plenty of positive economic news. Listen to some of these headlines. From the New York Times: ``Jobless Rate Dips to Lowest Level in More Than 2 years.'' From CNN: ``Dow closes with largest gain since March 2009.'' From Reuters: ``Private-sector jobs soar, payroll forecasts rise.'' From the Wall Street Journal: ``Online Sales Reach Record $1.25 Billion on Cyber Monday.''

I know it is far too early to start to celebrate, but I want to tell you a little bit about some of the details of this news. I know back in my State of Alaska, just like everywhere else in this country, people are still struggling to balance their checkbooks; that they face tough decisions about the cost of groceries, basic health care, college tuition for their kids, and just the basic expenses to live. Yet the recent news about our economy is very encouraging.

I want to give those specific examples. On unemployment and jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says total payrolls increased by 120,000 jobs in November as the unemployment rate dropped to 8.6 percent--as the headline said, the lowest level in more than 2 years. Also, the latest news also marked 21 consecutive months of private sector job growth.

I know some will come down and claim, well, that is not good enough. Well, I remember when I first came here, prior to me serving in the Senate, we were averaging about 500,000 jobs being lost every month.

Let me repeat this one statistic: There have been 21 consecutive months of private sector job growth--not led by government job growth but private sector job growth. So it is not robust, but it is growing. Again, that is positive news.

Manufacturing activity climbed in November, according to the Institute for Supply Management. Its indicators tell us manufacturing is continuing to expand--another strong signal of overall economic growth.

The American automotive industry is coming back strong. Think about it again. In 2009, it was literally flat on its back trying to recover. In November of this year, light vehicle sales were up 11.4 percent compared to a year ago. That is the highest sales rate since the 2009 Cash for Clunkers Program, which many here supported.

There is more good news about the automobile industry. Ford says its November sales rose 13 percent. Chrysler Group reported a breathtaking November sales jump of 44.5 percent from a year ago. General Motors reported it sold 7 percent more new cars and trucks in November than it did a year earlier.

On investments and the markets, again, we have an important signal. It is not something you should always judge the economy on, but it is an important piece of it, and so much of middle class-America is tied to the market--maybe your 529 account or your 401(k) retirement program or the personal management of your account or, if you are self- employed, your SEP account. We are all tied to it to some degree.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed over 12,000 last Friday and gained 7 percent--just in 1 week. Let me take a moment to describe where we have come from in the market. Last week's closing numbers represent a gain of about 33 percent since early January of 2009--when several other Members and I were sworn in to the Senate. In January of 2009, the market still kept going down. In March of 2009, it dropped to its lowest level, a little over 6,600. Last week's numbers represent a whopping 81 percent increase since 2009. If you take the next step and look at the S&P index, it reflects a very similar gain--up 36 percent since 2009 and, since the dark days of March when it really crashed out, an 82-percent increase. It is important because so much of our retirement is tied to it.

If you read or hear the pundits and politicos here, it is always doom and gloom. I wanted to come to the floor and talk about some of these issues because we are moving in the right direction. We are moving in a positive way, but we don't hear this in the news because good news is not necessarily reported. It may show up one day and then disappear. When a bad thing happens, we hear about that for a week and a half and we are here talking about why it is so bad. But the overall numbers tell us the fundamentals are changing in a positive way.

The other piece, which is consumer confidence, is important because if people and businesses are not confident about the future, they will not invest, spend, or participate in the economy. But it is better.

Last month, the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index rose to 56.0 percent, its highest level since July. Americans spent $52.4 billion over the four-day Thanksgiving Day weekend, according to the National Retail Federation. That is the highest total ever recorded during the traditional start of the holiday shopping season. When I was back home for Thanksgiving, I heard this good news from many shop owners. The new Apple store in Anchorage saw record sales, with thousands of shoppers coming through the door, and it was a cold weekend. Sales on Cyber Monday--the first online shopping day after Thanksgiving weekend--rose 22 percent from a year ago. Americans spent another record--$1.25 billion--on that Monday, setting again record sales for Cyber Monday.

On trade, the U.S. trade deficit narrowed from $44.9 billion in August to $43.1 billion in September. That is the smallest trade gap since last December and the biggest 1-month improvement since July, according to the Commerce Department.

Housing is a critical piece of our overall economy, and some say we are in the recession because the housing market collapsed, but there are also many other pieces to the equation. We never hear good news, we hear negative news. There is a lot of work to get new home starts and current inventory off the market, help people who are underwater, and make sure they can stay in their homes and receive the benefit.

The Pending Home Sales Index, a forward-looking indicator based on contract signings--people who are looking at a home to purchase and maybe have entered into a contract and said: I will be purchasing this home in 30, 60, or 90 days from now--was up 10.4 percent in October from the month before. The National Association of Realtors says home sales are up more than 9 percent from the same time last year. Again, is it as robust as we want? No. Is it better than where it was? Absolutely.

Many of the policies that my colleagues and I have fought for on the floor--a lot of times, we make decisions and we move on. We go to the next issue, and we don't have time to reflect on the results of the work we are doing. In the last 2\1/2\ years, since the great recession came into play, there have been a lot of good things happening.

As for residential construction--this is, again, people building homes, providing construction jobs, providing a new tax base for communities around the country that need it so they can hire police, firefighters, and teachers--the Census Bureau says it was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $239 billion in October, up roughly 3.5 percent from the previous month.

For Alaska--again, while spending time back home, I tried to spend time with the small business community, asking them: What is happening? What do you sense? And what is your confidence level? I had a meeting with a group of small business owners, and one got a loan from the SBA recently. He took advantage of the low cost we were able to implement through legislation we pass here. It helped him get into a new restaurant. Now he employs

120 people in my community in Alaska--Anchorage. Another owner of a video production company had one of the best years ever, and he is doing work for corporate clients who are willing to spend money.

These are all very positive developments. Now, as we approach the end of the year, we in this Chamber need to do our part to keep the momentum moving forward. People watch us, and we squabble over many issues. As I mentioned, all this good news is because of the work a slim majority did over the last 3 years in this body because we believe in the future, in what the potential is of this great country in which we live. Maybe some had different views on what could happen. We believed in what is possible. These statistics show us that belief is now paying off.

As I look at where we are today, we need to continue to make these smart public policy decisions that create a sound economy. We need to do it as best we can in a bipartisan way. What I am talking about now is extending the tax cut for middle-class American families, continuing the tax relief, giving a reduction in our payroll taxes, which is due to expire at the end of the year.

Before any of us leave Washington later this month for the holidays, we clearly have to resolve this issue. In my opinion, we have no choice, and here is why: Unless Congress takes action, the average middle-class family will be hit by a $1,000 tax increase starting January 1.

Economists of all political stripes have called this tax cut critical for America's continued economic growth. They say that letting it lapse could push us back into a deep recession. Truly, that would be unforgivable based on where we are today and how far we have come in a short time--almost 3 years now.

Some on the other side of the political aisle seem unsure about renewing the tax relief--the tax cut aimed at middle-class families and small businesses--this after fighting for massive tax cuts for the wealthy in our deficit reduction talks. If they block this tax cut, about 160 million families will get the news during the holidays that their taxes are going up on January 1. That is simply not fair. It makes no sense just when the economic indicators, as I mentioned, are looking so positive.

As I said, if we don't act, a typical family making $50,000 a year would see their taxes increase about $1,000. But if we pass the middle- class tax cut in 2011, for the 2012 tax year, that same family will get a total tax cut of $1,500. Not only would they see the thousand, but they would get something additional because of the way we drafted this.

Most of that money will go directly into the economy. In Alaska, roughly 400,000 people benefited from the tax cut this year, and they used it to pump about $300 million into the State and local economies-- again, the small businesses that I traveled to, a couple of them with my son and his cousin, House of Hobbies and the Bosco store. While they were playing all the games for free, playing the race cars and all that stuff and looking at baseball cards, I was asking the clerk: What does it feel like? There is no question that they said there is a change in the economy in the positive. That is because in Alaska, for example, these 400,000 people had $300 million in their pockets--not the IRS putting it into the Treasury, but they had it and they spent it. And I will be frank about it--after my son and my nephew, his cousin, spent that time on the free road there playing with toys, I spent some money to help my small businesses and the economy. That is what it is about.

This tax cut put $110 billion into the American economy this year. Let me say that again--$110 billion. It is money that could go to the IRS or to middle-class Americans. I think the choice is very clear as to who should benefit from those dollars.

We were elected--as I was from Alaska--to represent all Americans, not just those at the top end but the people who work every day, those whom we see on a regular basis when we go back home or walk out of this building or actually in this building, the people spending time every day working hard to move this economy forward. It is our obligation to continue to do what we can to make their lives a little bit better by lessening their burden of taxes and giving them the tax relief that they deserve and that we should be able to give to them as January 1 rolls around.

I hope that, as we move toward the holiday season, we can continue to give the gift of tax relief to the middle-class Americans--to my 400,000 folks back in Alaska and all of the small businesses in Alaska that have benefited. Let's do what is right and do it in a bipartisan way and move forward in giving continued tax relief to middle-class Americans.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the distinguished public service of a true statesman from my State of Alaska, John Katz. At the new year, John will step down as director of the State of Alaska's national office here in Washington, DC, after nearly three decades in that position. John Katz is an Alaska pioneer. He has been a key player in virtually every major public policy decision in Alaska for the past 40 years--and Alaska has only been a State for 52 years. John helped Alaska's transition to statehood in our formative years. He shaped and implemented key congressional laws, including the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

John laid the foundation for Alaska's robust resource-based economy, which at one point was providing this Nation a quarter of its domestic oil. John has helped transform the Last Frontier into a modern society, bringing basic facilities like water, sewer, and phone service to a territory one-fifth the size of the lower 48 States. Overall, John has helped carefully manage Alaska's often strained relationship with the Federal Government. After working as a high school teacher and coach in Baltimore public schools, John began his long career of service to Alaska when he joined the staff of Alaska Congressman Howard Pollock. My dad, Nick

Begich, succeeded Representative Pollock as Alaska's lone Member of the U.S. House.

In 1971, John became a legislative assistant to then-Senator Ted Stevens. His wise counsel to Senator Stevens would continue until Senator Stevens' tragic passing last year. John worked in Alaska on Native claims issues and as counsel to the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission. The Commission didn't have a very sexy title, but it crafted important policy about the land management relations between the State and Federal Governments. From 1981 to 1983, John served as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, arguably the most influential agency in Alaska State government. It oversees Alaska's 103 million acres of land and manages the resource base for our economy: oil and gas, mining, forestry, parks, and agriculture. In 1983, John was asked by then-Governor Bill Sheffield to move to Washington to direct the State's office here. It was a position in which he would serve seven different Alaska Governors, as varied politically as Alaska is richly diverse.

Democrats, Republicans, one Alaska Independent--all have relied heavily on John's encyclopedic knowledge of our State and his helping navigating the often choppy waters of Washington. Too often John's mission has been fighting against Federal encroachment into the lives of Alaskans. It is a battle we fight here every day. I, too, have relied on John's wisdom and insight, as mayor of our State's largest city, and now as I serve Alaska in this Chamber. After a distinguished career, John has cited what he called ``the increased polarization and deterioration of the public policy process at the Federal level.'' He says it is the worst he has ever seen in nearly half a century of thankless public service. I am saddened by this turn of events and sad to agree with John about the state of our national discourse.

But I am heartened by John's dedication to the people of Alaska, to tirelessly working each and every day to educate non-Alaskans about the unique challenges and opportunities of our State. I also commend the contributions of John's longtime partner and wife, Sherry, and thank her for her sacrifice on behalf of Alaskans. John will be sorely missed as director of State and Federal relations for the State of Alaska. I only hope that he continues his distinguished service to Alaskans in the next phase of his life--and I wish him all the best.

Mr. President, I am pleased to speak on amendment No. 1114 to S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Casey, Leahy, Graham, Murkowski, Akaka, Pryor, Brown of Massachusetts, Tester, and Manchin.

This amendment can be explained very simply. It expands the ability of Reserve component members and surviving spouses to travel on military aircraft when space is available.

Members of the National Guard and Reserve and surviving military spouses make great sacrifices for our Nation. However, too often these individuals do not receive the benefits they have earned for their service. For example, Reserve component members' and retirees' space- available travel privileges are limited within the United States and their family cannot travel with them.

As we all know, the National Guard and Reserve contributions to our Nation's defense since 9/11 are invaluable. There is no reason why their ability to travel on a military aircraft when space is available should be limited or restricted just because they are in the Guard or Reserve. They have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have lost comrades. Virtually every member of the National Guard in Alaska has deployed in support of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Surviving spouses of a military member eligible for retired pay or of a member killed in the line of duty retain no space-available travel privileges at all after the death of their spouse. Yet they have made a lifetime commitment to the military or, in many cases, lost their loved one in war--the ultimate sacrifice.

We must continue to provide support to our surviving spouses and recognize their commitment to our military. As many of our Nation's most senior leaders have said, families are the backbone of the military. We must continue to recognize the National Guard and Reserve who are such a vital part of our Nation's defense and homeland security.

In this time of fiscal constraint, this amendment gives us the opportunity to support our National Guard, Reserves, and surviving spouses without a cost to taxpayers. The amendment is budget neutral.

The amendment is supported by the National Guard Association of the United States, Air Force Sergeants Association, and the Gold Star Wives.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in providing better benefits--at no cost--to surviving spouses and Reserve component members.

Amendment No. 1149

Mr. President, today I am pleased to speak about my amendment No. 1149. I would like to thank my cosponsor, Senator Murkowski, for her work on this amendment.

This amendment is very simple. It authorizes the Air Force to enter into a land exchange and conveyance in Alaska.

The exchange will resolve land-use conflicts between the municipality of Anchorage, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, and Eklutna, an Alaska Native village.

By working out this agreement, we are ensuring the airmen and soldiers at the joint base have more land available to continue the vital training they need to defend our Nation.

All Federal agencies involved support this land exchange and conveyance. This includes the Air Force and Bureau of Land Management.

I appreciate my colleagues' consideration of this amendment and urge their support.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 1114.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside for one more.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. Very simply, it is a bill that will help our returning heroes get good jobs as they transition back into civilian life.

The bill is supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. I look forward to the passage of this bill tomorrow--perfect timing as our country prepares to honor the bravery, sacrifice, and commitment of our American veterans.

Since I first walked into this Chamber nearly 3 years ago, it has been a great privilege to serve on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I am also proudly serving on the Armed Services Committee. From these positions I have worked on behalf of the 74,000 veterans who call Alaska home and the more than 28,000 Active-Duty and Reserve component men and women serving our great country.

My State of Alaska, for all its unique geography and demographics, has the distinction of being the home of the largest proportion of veterans per capita of any other State in our country.

Alaska has a proud history of defending our country. This poster shows our troops preparing for battle on Alaska's soil during World War II. Although many Americans are still not aware, there was fierce fighting in the Aleutians as the Japanese launched a diversionary attack in preparation for the Battle of Midway. One of my most rewarding moments so far as a Member of this body was making sure that two dozen brave members of the Alaska Territory Guard, all distinguished Alaskan Native Elders, finally got the recognition they earned for their courageous service to this Nation more than a half century ago. We can see by this poster, a few of them here long before Alaska was a State and our country was engaged in World War II, these Alaskan heroes answered their Nation's call on America's most remote frontlines.

In 2009, the Senate approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that I sponsored with my colleague, Senator Murkowski, that President Obama signed into law. Twenty-five surviving territorial Guardsmen finally received their retirement pay and recognition they earned so many years ago. I have done my level best to support our troops in other ways, including expanding services and programs for homeless veterans, including more support for women veterans and expanding telehealth services for our rural veterans.

Supporting the post-GI bill. This provides tuition assistance for veterans and takes into consideration living expenses so students can better focus on their education. It allows for servicemembers to pass this entitlement to their immediate families.

Every time I meet a veteran, I thank him or her for their service to our country. I know they appreciate that. All Americans should go out of their way to thank our veterans, not just on Veterans Day but every day. But thank you only goes so far. It doesn't pay the mortgage or buy groceries. Our veterans really need good jobs. The statistics are shameful. More than one in four veterans under the age of 24 is without a job. A quarter million post-9/11 veterans are unemployed.

As you can see by this chart, that is a 12-percent unemployment rate, and it simply is unacceptable. The VOW to Hire Heroes Act will create new direct Federal hiring authority so jobs will be waiting for our veterans the day they leave the military. It will provide tax credits for employers who hire veterans and wounded veterans who have been looking for work. It will improve the transition process as servicemembers leave the battlefield and enter the workforce. This legislation also expands training opportunities at community colleges and technical schools for 100,000 unemployed veterans who served before September 11. It expands additional Montgomery GI benefits for older veterans for up to 1 year.

Let me take a few moments to talk about an additional challenge faced by veterans in my home State. Many of Alaska's returning warriors come home to the most remote areas of America. Alaska boasts unsurpassed beauty. It can also be a challenging and dangerous place to live.

Right now, as I speak on this floor, the northwest coast of Alaska is being struck by winds approaching 100 miles per hour and storm surges of 8 feet or more. With waves up to 30 feet, coastal erosion and flooding is truly and certainly going to happen. If this were happening today on the east coast of America, this storm would have some name to it, and we would not be hearing or reading about anything else but that storm. To give you a concept of how far reaching this storm is, imagine a storm reaching from Mexico, along the west coast, up to Washington State. That is the size of the storm that is occurring right now.

So if you think veterans in other parts of the United States face challenges in employment, job training, access to health care, and there is no doubt they do, you should see some of our circumstances in Alaska.

Here are two stories about real Alaskans. The first story is about a disabled Army veteran living in Kipnuk, a small Yupik Eskimo village on the far western coast of Alaska. This vet suffered a spinal cord injury in 2006 that requires yearly evaluation. He must travel to a VA hospital in Seattle to receive his care. That is a trip of thousands of miles and thousands of dollars.

Additionally, for more routine illnesses, such as the flu, he is forced to travel to Anchorage, to a VA clinic there, still a jet flight away from his home, and, again, close to $1,000.

There is the retired Air Force veteran who needed to have hardware removed from his wrist and shoulder following a failed surgery. The VA sent him to the hospital in Seattle despite the fact that several hospitals in Anchorage--closer and less costly to get to--could have performed the procedure.

There are many stories similar to this that I hear every single day when I travel my State. It doesn't matter where I go; one veteran or veteran's family member will tell me a very similar story. That is why we continue to push for a piece of legislation that I have introduced, the Alaska Hero's Card. It is so simple when you look at what we are trying to do.

If health care services are available closer to home, then any Alaskan veteran would simply present the card at the federally qualified health clinic and get the services. It limits their time traveling away from their families, it lowers the costs of the VA, and it gives services where they need them and can get them. It is truly a win-win. More importantly, it allows, as I said, veterans to be with their families.

Mr. President, you have been an incredible advocate on health care issues. When you try to do health care rehabilitation and services and take someone from a rural community and take

them to a large community, the odds are the rehabilitation will go slower or the service will not be as effective. We have to do what we can to ensure that they have the service closer to their homes and their families and at a lower cost.

As we approach Veterans Day, I would like to recognize the Arctic warriors serving our country. The members of the 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Fort Wainwright, AK, have been serving with distinction in Afghanistan since May of this year. The 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team will deploy to Afghanistan at the end of this month for a total of more than 9,000 Alaskan-based troops on the ground there.

In addition, there are 550 airmen and soldiers still in Iraq today but will be coming home by the end of the year. Our Alaska National Guard units and members are in both countries, Iraq and Afghanistan.

To our Arctic warriors, thank you. Thank you for your service and sacrifice to our country, and thank you to the families who are supporting our Arctic warriors as they serve this great country. So to honor them and all the brave men and women who have served and are currently serving, let's come together on the floor of this Chamber. Let's put our differences aside. Let's pass the VOW to Hire Heroes Act and help put America's veterans back to work.

I yield the floor.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

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.