Floor Statements

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. 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. 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. 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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 26, which was submitted earlier today.

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.

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

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

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. 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.

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. President, I rise in support of the New START treaty. I do so for several reasons.

First, of course, the treaty is essential for national security. It promotes transparency and stability between the two countries that possess the majority of the world's nuclear weapons. It will decrease the likelihood of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of a rogue nation.

For the residents of my State, the treaty is close to home, literally. Alaska and Russia are less than 3 miles apart at the closest point in the Bering Sea. Commerce, scientific, educational, and cultural exchanges are commonplace between Alaska and our Russian neighbors. So peaceful coexistence with Russia is more than an abstract concept to my constituents; it is a way of life.

The second reason this treaty is personal for Alaskans is because of our close proximity to North Korea. When North Korea's leader exercises his political muscle by firing test missiles or threatening to attack the United States, Alaskans get nervous because we are most directly in the line of fire.

Thankfully, my home State is home to the ground-based missile defense system. Based at Fort Greely, this sophisticated system of more than two dozen ground-based interceptors is maintained and operated by highly trained members of the Alaska National Guard. I was pleased to show Defense Secretary Robert Gates this state-of-the-art system last year. I worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure this system gets the resources and funding it warrants to protect us. I will continue to do that.

I would be troubled if the New START treaty impacted our Nation's missile defense system. I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be equally concerned. Fortunately, such concerns are unfounded. I am confident nothing in this treaty will limit our ability to defend ourselves and our allies against a ballistic missile attack from a rogue nation.

The preamble of this treaty simply acknowledges the relationship between offensive and defensive strategic arms and verifies that current defensive strategic arms do not undermine the offensive forces. The preamble is nonbinding. There is no action or inaction arising from this statement.

The section of the treaty prohibiting conversion of missile silos or launchers for ballistic missile defense purposes does not impact us. It is not something we are planning to do. In fact, we are in the process of completing a missile field in Alaska to field interceptors. The field will have seven spare silos to deploy more interceptors if we need them. We are moving forward with the phased adaptive approach to protect our allies, with the two-stage interceptor as a hedge.

The unilateral statement by Russia also is nonbinding and is not even part of the treaty. Our own unilateral statements make it clear that this treaty will not constrain missile defense in any way and that we will continue improving and deploying missile defense systems to protect us and our allies. These types of statements in a treaty are not unprecedented. The right to withdraw has been stated in many previous treaties--the nonproliferation treaty and the START treaty. Those statements did not stop the Senate from ratifying those treaties. The language in the New START treaty should not either. In fact, this treaty actually helps missile defense because it lessens restrictions on test targets that were in the previous treaty. We will have more flexibility in testing.

We have heard from our national security leaders that this treaty does not constrain ballistic missile defense in any way. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, Missile Defense Agency Director LTG Patrick O'Reilly, former Strategic Commander GEN Kevin Chilton, and countless others confirm that this treaty in no way limits our ballistic missile defense plans. We cannot disregard the views of our Nation's most senior military and civilian leaders on this critical issue because of politics.

We have had almost 7 months to consider this treaty. We have had numerous hearings and briefings--more on this treaty than any other single item I have been involved in since I have been here. In that time, I heard no current or former national security leader say this treaty is a detriment to ballistic missile defense. What they say and what we know is that the New START treaty will strengthen national security and will not constrain ballistic missile defense.

For all of these reasons, I urge a prompt approval of this vital treaty for our Nation and our world.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, I signed on to the Sessions-McCaskill bill because I think we need to get somewhere with the deficit. We signed a resolution letter to get it under control. I wasn't planning to speak. I was going to head home. But it triggered me when one of our colleagues on that side said, ``who wins tonight?'' That is not what this should be about. It is not who wins or loses. The American people are losing every day that we have this bickering that goes on. Honestly, I didn't see the pile of paper with the logo on it until I got to my seat. That is not necessary for us to get on with our business.

I was listening to the Senator from Tennessee, who was a former mayor,

and I was a former mayor. He was talking like a mayor. That is what we need here, people who think in the long term, how we get there. That is where we need to go. I didn't come here to hear the bickering that just went on a little bit ago and see the prop that was brought out. That is not why Alaska sent me here.

Who wins and loses? My State of Alaska is losing tonight, because we cannot get our work done after a year. Almost a quarter of the Senate sat and worked on this in multiple committees to get this bill to us. Here we are. We can argue the timing and all that, but the fact is, I look to both Democrats and Republicans on the Appropriations Committee. I listen to them, and my staff works with them to hear about the bill that is being put together. I am impressed all the time when I hear the votes that come out of there. They are almost unanimous. That is rare in this world we live in here. We cannot continue to bring props like that down and say who wins and loses, and then giggle about it as they leave the floor.

The public is fed up with that. If there is one thing they told us in November, it was to get busy and quit the gamesmanship. So I am looking forward to the Senator's comments. We had a very productive meeting talking about tax reform, deficit management, and how we need to control spending. That is the direction we have to go in. But we are not going to get there with these games. I know both sides--and you are right, we should not cast blame. We are all at fault here. This may be the moment that we finally say to ourselves, no more show and tell, no more gimmicks. Let's get serious, and the winners should be the American people. I sat here and listened to the Senator and I feel like the mayor was coming out of him. As a former mayor, he has had to reach across to both sides. Senator Gregg said in his farewell speech that we get work done between the 40 yard lines. He is right. We have to get back there and quit being on the fringes for the media that sits up here, and wherever else they watch us from.

I am looking forward to maybe going home and getting a good night's sleep and coming back with a fresh attitude tomorrow. I am controlling my emotions as best I can tonight. The words of the Senator from Tennessee--I wish those were the words that started the debate tonight. That is not what happened. I look forward to whatever we can do to get through this maze and get on with the show and get what the American people are looking for, and that is results from the Congress maybe will go from 13 percent popularity to 14 percent approval.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Thank you to the Senator from Illinois for giving us a little time before you have your maiden speech. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Let me echo and associate my comments with all of the Members who have spoken previously, and thanks to Senator Warner and Senator Chambliss for their work in bringing truly a bipartisan approach to how we start the discussion and move forward on deficit management and tax reform, which is critical for this country.

You have heard all of the statistics, all of the numbers, all of the reasons why we should do it. But pretty simply, the way I look at this, if there is one issue in my 2008 campaign that I talked about at the very beginning of the campaign it was about the deficit and what was happening, how much of your tax dollars are going toward paying the debt, paying the interest.

I know, Madam President, you spoke about it, the interest costs that are absorbing the amount of the budget here. But in reality, I remember in 2008, no one paid much attention. Then suddenly the crash occurred at the end of 2008 and then everyone wanted to talk about it, because it affected them and they now saw the picture.

But where we are today is an important point. Tonight we will have a vote on a tax package that will be temporary, a 2-year fix to a much more complicated problem. When I came to the body here, I sat down with a couple of Senators, both on the Republican side and Democratic side, talked about the issue of reform, and recognized that we are truly going to change the way our Tax Code works. We cannot do these in bits and pieces. It has to be true reform.

So as we move into this next year, 2011, not only do we have to take the tough decisions regarding the deficit, we have to be aggressive about tax reform if you want to create certainty to the business community and our economy. A 2-year fix does not do that.

I know there are many who have spoken before me on all of the data points. But purely and very simply put, if we do not deal with this now--and ``now'' is in the next few months--we will hit that crashing wall, we will hit it hard, and we will not have choices because we have not made a plan regarding the deficit and tax reform.

I thank the people who have put this together, Senator Warner, Senator Chambliss, and thank all of the Members, over two dozen, Republicans and Democrats, who are here tonight talking about the need for serious attention to the deficit and tax reform. I look forward to next year.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as you know, I was presiding this morning. I was not scheduled to speak, but this time I decided to inform my staff that I would be speaking so they would not be surprised.

First, with all due respect to the Senator from Arizona, let's not cast shadows on either side. We are all in this together. You cannot blame one side or the other for delay. I could argue that the food safety bill took way too long because of three filibusters from the other side. But we are here.

I am new to this whole process the last 2 years, and I have been patient about the issues we face and talk about. But this one is a fundamental issue. It is not a question of how long we extend these tax benefits for the middle class; it is who gets them--the middle class or the wealthy, the millionaires and billionaires.

I heard my good friend, the Senator from South Dakota--we just sponsored a piece of legislation that passed--talk about the small businesspeople, that they will be affected. Well, let me give some data points because it is one thing to have opinions, it is another thing to have facts. Let's just focus on the facts.

The bottom line is businesses in this country. I can speak as a small businessperson, I think the only one--if not broadly, pretty darn close--who has small businesses in this Chamber. My wife has four retail businesses. She started her businesses selling smoked salmon on a street corner on a vending cart. Today, she employs 30-some employees, struggling every day but making a difference in the small business world.

Who are these people, the small business community I hear people from the other side talking about? I have no clue whether most of them have been in it, but I have. Who are these people? These are the people we get our drycleaning from or when we go to the convenience store, the pizza parlor, wherever it might be, these are the small businesses we are talking about.

The small business community of this country that makes $1 million gross--that is not their taxable income; gross--$1 million and under, where probably their net income is well below $200,000 on that, the taxable income, is 95 percent of the businesses of this country. I like the $250,000-and-under proposal. I also like the compromise Senator Schumer has brought forward--$1 million and under--because it catches 95-plus percent of the small businesses of this country.

I continue to hear from the other side that we are going to have an impact on the small business community. You are not. If you support the efforts of helping the middle class and you support the efforts of helping small business--businesses that gross $1 million and under--and for those who don't know the difference between gross and net, net is the profit on which they get taxed; gross is what they sell the products for, not what they get taxed on. Don't confuse the numbers and confuse the American people. And 95-plus percent of the businesses will enjoy the tax relief and break. So don't be confused by some of the numbers that are thrown around on the other side or their one-liners.

I am going to tell you from Alaska, when I go back to Alaska and I listen to the constituency or when I get the phone calls, e-mails, the thousand-plus letters and e-mails I get every single week, what do they want? They want to make sure the small business community--because in our State 56 percent of the employment is generated by small businesses, small businesses that every day are making a difference. Those are the folks on whom we are focused. It is a question of not how long these extensions are but who gets them. Is it the millionaire- billionaire club or the people?

I know the other side complains and even some on our side complain that we are here on Saturday, but you know there are a lot of Alaskans, a lot of Americans, a lot of folks from Colorado who are working today. They are working on Saturday, working on Sunday, working one or two or three jobs. First, I say to my colleagues, we are here to have a debate. Some might want to call it political. Well, welcome to politics, where 100 people get elected to a political process. This is what I came for--a debate and discussion about what is important to the American people, to the people whom I represent--Alaskans. That is what I came here for.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal--again, not a very liberal magazine--as well as the Washington Post, which some may consider a liberal paper--read their headlines. We can talk about what is making the economy move. What is making the economy move is consumer confidence, not millionaire and billionaire confidence, I can tell you that. They have $2 trillion stuffed away in a bank account.

My friend from Iowa is right--he and I have done some work together, and I respect him greatly--he is right: $2 trillion is stuffed away with the millionaires and billionaires. But the people who are expending the resources and buying this economy are the middle class, the working people of this country. It is a question of, who are we going to support? Who are we going to help?

We do have these huge deficits. We have to make some decisions sooner or later. Today's is one of those decisions. I hope we are going to make a decision that, millionaires and billionaires, we are not going to fund your tax bonus, your tax giveaway from the taxpayers, on the backs of the future. But we are going to help the small business community. We are going to help the middle class.

When you look at the numbers--Cyber Monday--some of you may not know what this is; I do because I am in the retail business in our family-- versus Black Friday, which is the Friday after Thanksgiving, and then there is Cyber Monday, which occurs Monday, Cyber Monday alone raked in a historic $1 billion. Now, no disrespect for the millionaires and billionaires, but they are not on Cyber Monday, I guarantee you that. Everyday Americans are, everyday Alaskans are--especially in Alaska because we have to get a lot of products that are not necessarily always in our State. Double-digit increases to the automobile industry--an automobile industry that we helped out to make sure they could survive, but now they are having double-digit sales. Home sales in October,

existing home sales, which is critical to clean the inventory--again, I am from the real estate industry, and I know this--10.4 percent increase in October. That is not millionaires and billionaires who buy those homes because they just trade among their friends; these are working Alaskans, working Americans spending their money because they believe in the future.

But here we are about to have a political debate, and I understand there is a lot of swapping and trading going on, and we are having to debate today, and who knows what is going to happen next week on other legislation. To be very frank with you, I think that is not the way this should operate. We should vote on this based on the merits, the merits of the 95-plus percent of the business community that will benefit from the million-and-under program, the 98 percent of the middle class who will benefit--that is whom we should be talking about.

When you look at the data points in regard to the consumer confidence, we are now in the third month and running of increasing consumer confidence. Thirty retail chains talk about their record increases in sales. Again, the people who are shopping at these places, people such as myself, my family, my brothers and sisters, many Alaskans--that is what this is about. It is not a question of how long to extend these things; it is who will benefit from the right public policy discussion and decisions. Small business folks benefit.

I understand the other side doesn't like the $250,000 and under, so a lot of us on this side, moderates, said: Well, why not try something a little different? Let's up it a little bit; let's get to the $1 million threshold because it covers basically everybody except the millionaire and billionaire club. That seemed reasonable. I have yet to see any compromise from the other side.

That is also what the election told us. It wasn't one side won, one side lost. The people in this country, the people in Alaska are telling me every day: Get busy, solve problems, compromise, and move forward. The compromise should be not on how long these go but who benefits.

My view, again, I am going to support both of these. I think the compromise that has been laid out on the $1 million and under will make a big difference to our business community. So that argument I keep hearing from the other side--and I will tell you this from the other side--I am a small businessperson. I know who these people are. So when you talk about it and talk about an economist says this or that, I have worked in it, I live it, I see it. So I understand what they are asking me to do. Going with that compromise is the right decision in the long term.

I encourage my friends that we can reach a compromise here and get to help our small business community, the middle class, and put money in to reduce the deficit--to reduce the deficit. Help our economy, reduce the deficit, I would say that is a pretty good deal, and that is what the taxpayers and the voters told us in this last election.

To my friends on the other side, we are reaching out. They may not like the $250,000, but the $1 million and under is a positive step to help our communities. Again, why would we give millionaires and billionaires $300 billion in another bonus? It makes no sense to me. They are not the ones driving this economy, despite what my friends on the other side might say. It is the people who are the small business community, it is the people who work every single day, who are working today while we sit here and deliberate this issue, who will be working tonight and tomorrow and Monday. For us to sit around and say: Let's wait until Monday to sit down and have compromise--today is the day, right now; this is what we are doing.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I wasn't planning to actually come to the floor this morning, but as we prepare for the day, sometimes we watch those who make comments and reflect on what was talked about yesterday and what we discussed and what we see on the floor. I have this new attitude that as I see people put information on the floor that has to have a balance to it, I am going to come out and give that balance when I can. The biggest one is on the economy.

I sat here yesterday and heard some folks on the other side complaining that it took us a week to deal with the food safety law, and they wondered why. Well, it is because the other side continues to require filibusters for 30 hours. I know the Presiding Officer has been working aggressively on this to try to figure out a way to get things on this floor more quickly so we can have a debate. But what shocked me is, they complained that it took a week when, in fact, their delay tactics caused the week delay. So they wonder why. They create the problem and then they complain about the problem.

The bigger issue is on the economy. The Presiding Officer and I came here 2 years ago. We came and were sworn in, in this Chamber, in January of 2009. This economy was collapsing. It was a disaster. It did not matter if you were from Alaska or New Mexico; wherever you went, you heard the stories about the problems with the economy and where we were headed. It was incumbent upon us to do as many things as possible to assist the economy to grow, to figure out the pathway. Not all ideas we laid on the table that passed were perfect, but they were multiple and multifaceted, to figure out what to do. The converse is, the other side just kept saying no, no, no. They weren't interested in doing anything to move this economy forward. We were in a crisis moment.

When we think about issues and we look back--and always at the time we are making decisions and we are hoping for the best and we are trying everything possible--it is helpful to remind ourselves where we were. It didn't matter, again, as I said, if you were from Alaska or New Mexico, the economic condition of this country and this world was at risk. So we made some moves that were controversial, and today many of us don't like to talk about them because the pollsters will tell us: That is bad news; don't talk about it. The public hates it. Maybe it is the TARP or the bailout or the stimulus. Figure out the list.

Every day I read Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, CNBC. I look at all the business publications online and in print. What I like to see is not what politicians are saying about how the economy is going but what other people are saying--the people who actually work every single day to try to build this economy. I can speak to this. Meaning no disrespect--I know the Presiding Officer is an attorney. I mean no disrespect to the attorneys who are here. We have lots of them in the Senate.

I am from the private sector. My first business license was at the age of 14. My wife owns four retail stores. We are businesspeople. We understand what it takes to go to the bank and try to scratch a loan from them to build a business, expand a business. We understand when a banker says no, so we have to go raise capital from other folks to try to make our dreams come true.

There are a lot of people who come to this floor on the other side who talk a lot about business who have never been in it, who have never had to make a payroll. They have worked their way through another means of income. So it is frustrating to me when I hear people who have never been in it come out on this floor and talk about the business world.

Let me give some data points. I will probably do this more often than I should over the next several months because the American people have heard the story from the other side over and over.

I was no big fan of the auto bailout--a lot of us weren't--but 10 days ago, a little blip in the news: GM had the largest initial public offering in stock market history. The first day they estimated that about $17 billion would be subscribed to it. Then it was $20 billion. The latest news is $23 billion. The American people put their money on the table and bet on GM: $23 billion. Unbelievable. Actually, what truly shocked me was when I grabbed--and I get it every day, I read it, and I think there are incredible news stories. It is not a liberal newspaper--the Wall Street Journal. It has very conservative views on a lot of things. But their headline: ``GM Stock Sale in High Gear. Government-backed carmakers on pace to score one of the largest U.S. IPOs ever.''

The government owned 61 percent then. With this IPO, it is now down to about 26 percent. It clearly shows, even though it was controversial and still is controversial, even though no one wants to talk about it, that investment to save an American company in order for it to sustain American jobs in this country is succeeding. It is not because I am saying it. It is not because the Presiding Officer might say it or the other side now wants to take some credit, which is amazing--I love some of the quotes I read.

When this first was kicked around, they called it socialism, the world was collapsing, the sky was falling. Now you read the quotes from some of the folks on the other side and they say: Well, with our help, we made it a better deal. They didn't vote for anything to make it a better deal. That is just a fact. The fact is, we took the risk to make an American company survive. That is what we did on this side of the aisle. Today, that company is more profitable than ever before.

When you look at the data, the private sector is successful and the American people are investing in that company. That is the true test of the work we did--even though it was controversial--what the outcome was.

As I sit here in the last couple of days, I am going to read a couple more data points. Again, it is not me saying this or writing these issues; it is the private sector that is identifying where we are going in this economy. Later this week, we will get a report--on Friday. I heard today in some of the comments that we should let the private sector do as much as it can. I 100 percent agree. I come from the private sector. Many on the other side talk about it, but they have never been there. The private sector added 93,000 jobs last month.

When you look at another one, the number I like to look at is consumer confidence. When consumers are more confident about the economy, they will spend more money, drive our economy, and invest in their country.

Interestingly, ``Consumer, Manufacturing Reports Beat Forecasts.'' That came out yesterday. Again, it is another indicator that the economy is moving in the right direction. It is still rough and fragile, and the policies are controversial, yes, but we took the risk and bet on the American people. That is what the Democrats did. We said that we believe in America, our ingenuity, innovation, and the capacity to pull us out of this recession. We are going to help them with some tools. They are making it happen.

I can tell you this from my wife being in the retail business. Black Friday--the Friday after Thanksgiving--is what retailers focus on when moving into the fourth quarter. Is it going to be successful? If you look at all the reports compared to a year ago, retailers have strong momentum coming out of Black Friday. Everyone did very well. That is another good indication.

As a matter of fact, one encouraging sign--and this is out of another business document. CNBC did this. It comes from the NPD Group, figuring out where consumers are after Black Friday and other shopping days. Shoppers are starting to buy items for themselves. In addition to gifts for others, about 35 percent of shoppers told NPD on Black Friday that they also made purchases for themselves. If shoppers are starting to splurge on themselves, that is an important development. It can push the holiday season past the forecasts.

I am not making this up. This is what is happening because, again, this side of the aisle said: We are going to bet on the American people. We are going to bet that the work we did in early 2009, trying everything possible

to jump-start this economy, is going to have a payoff down the road because we are going to focus on the private sector, helping them get the tools they need, just as we did before the August break in passing the small business incentive program and tax incentives and loan capacity. We only received two votes from the other side for that. So be it. We go the road alone. The net result for the last 2 years is that--I have been here for 2 years, and the occupant of the chair has been on the other side for a decade or so. But we came here to get work done. It may be controversial at times. Leadership is not easy. It is not just saying we are going to do that because everybody loves it. Sometimes the tough decisions are the ones the public has the hardest time with in the worst situations--the recession. We made some decisions--again not perfect--but the results are slowly and surely coming true.

The economy is moving in the right direction. Every time I hear from the other side that the private sector needs to do more--absolutely. As a matter of fact, the largest companies have more cash in their bank accounts today than they have had in decades because they have done well in the last few years in preparing for the new growth that is occurring right now in our economy.

I didn't plan to come down here. I was getting prepared for a Commerce Committee hearing. The occupant of the chair and I are both on that committee. Anybody who suggests we are not focused on this economy or on job creation or figuring out how to make sure the middle-class taxpayers of this country get a fair shake and make sure they have a tax break coming forward and continuing forward--those who say we are not focused on that are mistaken. I learned this when I was a mayor: We can do more than one thing at a time.

The reason I came down to talk is that nobody was talking. It is a dead zone. That is what happens. When they come down here and say: Gee, I wish we would be working on this or that--well, quit filibustering and doing the 30-hour delays and get on with the work. We are multitasking. The American people have asked us to work on jobs, the economy, taxes, and the budget. We are 100 people, and we can do this. Anybody who sits around and thinks we are not focused on the economy-- as someone who lived in the private sector, comes from it, who deals with small businesspeople every single day, I understand exactly what they are feeling. So those who have never experienced that should experience it once and understand that every day is an opportunity.

I am going to continue to come down here and talk about the positive news, the opportunities that are occurring from the work we have done in the last 2 years. The other side may complain or argue over was it right or wrong. The proof will be in the pudding in the fact that other people--not politicians jawboning about it--in the private sector are telling us. We have had some good news over the last several months.

The last point I will leave on is another bit of good news. It was small business again. They do an indicator and try to determine the confidence level of a small businessperson. That is important because the small business community is the largest driver of new employment now and in the future. So you want to make sure their confidence level is high. Well, in the last 5 months, it has increased every single month. I believe it is because of actions we have done here to give them faith that we believe in them, in the American people, and we believe the ability to move this economy forward is ahead of us, and we are doing it today.

Again, I will continue to come down here with data points and articles--not out of liberal magazines or publications. I heard earlier today about some liberal agenda. I don't know what that is about. I know what the American agenda is. I know what Alaska's agenda is. That is what I am here to do. If we just get off of these partisan kinds of activities and focus on what is right, we can get a lot done around this place. So I will continue to come down here and talk about the positive aspects of what is going on in the economy. Believe in the future and have an attitude of being positive about what we can do, and it is amazing what this country and this economy can do.

Mr. President, I appreciate the time I have had to discuss this issue. I warned my staff as I left--I said: Turn on the TV. I didn't tell them why I was coming here. They will ask me when I get back what I was doing. I will come down and talk about the positive aspects of this economy and will no longer listen to the other side naysay with negative attitudes. We have an economy that is improving--fragile but improving in the right direction because we on this side bet on the American people. I believe we bet right.

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