Floor Statements

Mr. President, thank you very much.

Earlier today I spoke on the Senate floor and talked about how the economy is fragile but going in the right direction and how many of us on this side of the aisle--as a matter of fact, all of us on this side of the aisle--took a lonely road over the last 2 years on some controversial issues that the public sees as controversial, but we knew we had to do something--something--to get this economy moving, and we are now seeing the benefits.

Every time I open--I do not care if it is the Wall Street Journal, Business Week--you name the business magazine or newspaper--which are not the liberal magazines; they are very conservative magazines and newspapers, or on the Internet--they will show you statistic after statistic that we are moving in the right direction. For this last month, I think it is 92,000 new jobs the private sector created. But in order to do it, we need to do some more.

I am a little frustrated by the letter. I also have a unanimous consent request that I hope to be able to bring up on HUBZones and to amend the Small Business Act. It is the idea of rebuilding local small businesses. What amazes me about this letter is it seems as though for some reason we can only do one thing at a time in this place.

Now, I come from local government where, as a mayor, we had to do multiple tasks because we always had many of them on the table. It did not matter whether it was public safety or creating jobs or rebuilding a neighborhood or working with the community, we had to do multiple things.

This country has multiple issues in front of it. We have an important START treaty that needs to be done. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. Our national security is at risk, but for some reason the other side wants to wait until we give--I am not even going to call it a tax cut. I call it a bonus for the millionaires and billionaires. It is a bonus. It is not a tax cut. It is a bonus they want to give, $700 billion of money we do not have. We cannot afford it. The working class of this country cannot afford it. The middle class cannot afford it. My son cannot afford it. My son's future kids cannot afford it--$700 billion of more debt to give a bonus to the people who drove our economy into the ditch. I do not really get it.

It seemed as though when I came here there was going to be a logical thought process, great debate. Once again, we are down here. Nothing on the other side. They will come out. I know they will have their charts and one-liners about how the economy will fall if we do not give millionaires and billionaires another tax break or bonus. It is not going to. We are on the road to recovery because this side took that lonely road when people told us: Wow, that is politically going to hurt you, and it did. We lost some people this last election. But leadership is not about taking the easy road, the easy answer, the simple solution.

We are in a very complex time with many issues facing us internationally and nationally--economic, energy, world issues. We have to be able to juggle those all and move them forward. The public demands it of us.

So this ultimatum, or whatever it is, this letter that they wrote just shows the classic tactic they have used the last 2 years. I mentioned this morning, and I will mention again, that I read in one of the political news stories yesterday that someone on the other side, one of the Senators from the other side, one of my colleagues, said: I can't believe it took us a week--a week--to do food safety. Neither can I. But it was not anyone on this side of the equation. Over there, they demanded us to have two 30-hour periods to debate food safety that ended up passing with over three-quarters of the body supporting it. Why? Because it is a good bill. But they wanted to delay it so we don't get to the main issues.

Again, Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I want to give it. We thought they would be down here at 3:30. We thought they would be down here at 3:45. Now it is 4 o'clock. They told us to get busy. We are trying to get busy by doing some unanimous consent requests on job creation. But I will just tell you, it is important for us to recognize what their goal is here: delay, delay, not helping the American people, and basically giving bonuses to millionaires and billionaires, which is unreal.

I see my colleague from New York wants to jump in, so I am going to yield for my colleague from New York. Again, I am hopeful there will be Members on the other side so we can get on with propounding unanimous- consent requests to get the Senate moving.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent I wish to do, but before I do that, I want to say that I know the Senator from Wyoming is not here right now, but I want to echo the point that we are going to deal with the 1099s. It is a question of making sure we pay for it the right way. I do not think anyone in this body--we are motivated and I think a lot of us are working in a bipartisan way to resolve that issue.

As someone who has been in the small business world since the age of 14, who has had a business license since that age, I have aggressively talked about the issue of small business, I have lived small business, and I clearly understand what the 1099 is all about. I talked about this issue back in July and made it clear that we need to deal with it and get rid of it. So we are going to be working on it. We will see this, hopefully, as part of the tax package, a tax extender package, and we will deal with it.

I come to the floor because I also have a unanimous consent I would like to do in regard to small business. This is a bill that will help what they call HUBZones, HUB areas that are high unemployment to the tune of 140 percent of the average adjusted unemployment rate. These have been very helpful for many different communities across this country as well as in our State.

This is the Rebuilding Local Business Act of 2010. It amends the Small Business Act and designates HUBZones and gives them another 3 years of opportunity.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Small Business Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3563 and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, still having the floor, let me respond. First off, I want to make sure, as the public is watching this, what that means. Keeping the tax rates where they are means millionaires and billionaires continue to get a bonus because that is what it is, with no disrespect to my colleague on the other side. I mean, corporations, businesses today--and I can speak about this, again with no disrespect to my colleague, as someone in the small business world. Our family is in this business. My wife owns four retail stores, started from scratch, just as I did in many of my businesses. The small business community--the small business community--benefits not by the people over the 2 percent, the top 2 percent; the small business community are the ones below that. Half of the businesses in this country, the small businesses, gross less than $25,000. That is a fact.

So for us to just kind of continue business as usual and keep these tax rates where they are for the millionaire and billionaire club--that didn't help us the last 3 years. The fact is, right now they have those tax breaks. Right today, they have those. They had them last year. They had them the year before. And what happened to this economy? It crashed and burned almost to the ground. What has happened to the millionaire and billionaire club? They have more money in their bank accounts today than ever before. That is not me saying it; that is other independent data out there. Corporations have more cash on hand today than they have had in decades.

So for us now to say: Hey, let's give the millionaires and billionaires another bonus for the next year for running our economy into the ground doesn't make any sense to me and doesn't make sense to the people back home in my State, the Alaskans I talk to every single day. As a matter of fact, when I came here in January of 2009, we were in our fourth or fifth month, if I remember right, of losing 500,000 to 700,000 jobs a month. Do you know what that is equal to? That is the total population of my State every single month being lost.

People who are saying we have to make sure the millionaires and billionaires have this $700 billion bonus, paid for by the taxpayers of this country, to drive us more into debt, and believe that is going to solve this economic problem is absolutely wrong. I have had to scratch nickles and dimes together to build businesses. I have done it before. I have succeeded and failed. That is not what grows business, giving millionaires and billionaires breaks. What makes a difference, for example, is the small business bill we passed, where we only got two votes on the other side, a small business bill that brought money to loan small businesses. That is what makes a difference, or extending the tax credit, which we did, not only during the recovery bill, the stimulus bill, which I know everyone on the other side hates, but also during our small business bill so people can buy equipment and depreciate it in the first year, write it off in the first year. That is of real benefit to small businesses. Extending the SBA loan program, expanding it from the limitations they had before to $5 million to make sure that the front-end fees do not have to be charged, what did that do in my State? It tripled--tripled--the loan capacity of SBA to small businesses. That was supported on this side. You want to grow small business. That is how you do it, because the way it has worked, we drove into the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

So I respect the comments on the other side, but for us to say to the American taxpayers: Hey, we are going to give another $700 billion to millionaires and billionaires, is beyond comprehension--beyond comprehension, especially when we tell them: Oh, by the way, it is going to be debt financed. So my son, who is 8 today, and his kids, my grandkids, maybe, in the future, will still be paying that bill because we were told that by Monday we have to make a decision.

I am not doing that. I didn't come here to play those games, to swap off the START treaty or national security for the benefit of millionaires and billionaires.

The other thing I have learned about this place, we can multitask. I came down here this morning, no one was on the Senate floor. I go to committee meetings--there is supposed to be 15, 25 people--2 people show up, maybe 4. I don't know what other people are doing. I am showing up because that is what I was sent here to do by the people of my State, to come here and work. For us to sit around and say we can only do one thing at a time--I talk to families every single day. They are doing multiple things every day, every single day. Why we can't, with all the staff we have, all the abilities we have, focus on more than one thing is ridiculous.

Again, no disrespect to the Senator from Tennessee. I mean him no ill words. I am frustrated. I didn't come here for these kinds of games. We put a 1099 amendment on the Food Safety Act. People are asking: What are we doing? I heard yesterday, why did we spend a week on the food safety bill. The other side wanted to delay it because it was good politics for them to delay and drag it out. So here we are. We have a deadline. We have to get this passed or we are going home. If you don't want to be around here, then go home. But the fact is, the American people sent us here, Alaskans sent me here to not just do one issue but to do multiple issues. That is what our country is about. It is complex. There is no single issue that drives the economy. But giving millionaires and billionaires a $700 billion tax bonus is ridiculous.

I appreciate the comments. I am sorry my colleague objected to this one item because in order to build this economy, we have to have multiple things in play. This gives more tools to the private sector to grow their neighborhoods and businesses.

I appreciate the opportunity to rant for a little bit and yield the floor.

I thank the Senator. Unless this bipartisan bill becomes law, many small businesses for which identity theft is not a threat could be required to spend time and effort to comply with the red flags rule implementing the FACT Act. This could require them to take time away from growing their businesses and creating jobs. Small businesses are the economic driver of our country, and in a time of high unemployment and stagnant economic growth, businesses should be focused on job creation, and should not have to spend the money to comply with regulatory burdens disproportionate to the scope of the identity theft problem.

This bill would address what the chairman of the FTC, Jon Leibowitz, called ``the unintended consequences of the legislation establishing the red flags rule.'' While this list isn't exclusive, many small businesses such as doctor's and dentist's offices, pharmacies, veterinary clinics, accounting offices, and other types of health care providers and other service providers were classified as ``creditors'' because they sometimes let clients pay after they provide their services. This legislation makes clear that these small businesses should not be swept under the red flags rule in the future just because they allow payment to be deferred, when they don't offer or maintain accounts that pose a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft.

I would ask the chairman of the Banking Committee if he agrees with my description of what the Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010 will accomplish?

Mr. President, today I congratulate Dr. Ping-Tung Chang, the recipient of the U.S. Outstanding Community Colleges Professor of the Year Award. This award is recognized as one of the most prestigious honors bestowed upon a professor, and this is the second time Professor Chang has won a Professor of the Year award.

To be nominated for this award requires dedication to the art of education and excellence in every aspect of the profession. Professor Chang should be proud of this accomplishment as he has been personally vested in each student and has helped shape the leaders of tomorrow.

In his 24 years at Matanuska-Susitna College, Professor Chang has taught mathematics to nearly 6,000 students and has successfully established a scholarship fund for students. Professor Chang has used innovative methods to get students excited about mathematics and problem solving. I commend him for his leadership and passion for educating.

Professor Chang, I wish you the very best in all your endeavors. Congratulations and best regards.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Space Available Equity Act.

Members and retirees of the National Guard and Reserve, their families, and surviving military spouses make great sacrifices for our Nation. However, too often these individuals do not receive the benefits they have earned for their service.

For instance, members of the reserve components and ``gray area'' retirees, National Guardsmen or Reservists eligible for retirement but under the age of 60, have limited space-available travel privileges on Department of Defense aircraft under current regulation. Their space- available travel benefits are restricted to the continental United States and are not extended to their dependents, unlike active duty members and retirees.

Surviving spouses of a military member eligible for retired pay retain no space-available travel privileges at all after the death of their spouse, despite having made a lifetime commitment to the military or in many cases, lost their loved one in war.

To correct these inequities, I am introducing the National Guard, Reserve, Gray Area Retiree, and Surviving Spouse Space-available Travel Equity Act. This bill will give these deserving individuals comprehensive and equitable space-available travel privileges on Department of Defense aircraft. The bill is endorsed by the National Guard Association of the United States.

I urge my colleagues to join me in giving parity to our reserve component members and surviving military spouses.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing a bill to provide medically separated servicemembers and their family continued access to commissaries and exchanges. Unfortunately, these individuals lose many benefits upon their honorable discharge from the military for disabilities and injuries which prevent them continuing service.

These servicemembers have served their country dutifully. They have earned the right to retain commissary and exchange privileges after being honorably discharged for disabilities that prevent further service and may preclude certain types of employment thus hindering their ability to provide for their families.

My legislation will give commissary and exchange privileges to individuals medically separated from the military to ease economic hardships faced after their discharge. Additionally, by granting commissary and exchange privileges to these Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines they will be able to stay connected to their military communities.

This legislation is supported by the National Guard Association of the United States. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to honor and recognize the sacrifices of our disabled servicemembers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have to say to the Senator from Rhode Island, we will get some of that water that fizzes because we will need it as the night goes on.

The point is simple. To the American people, to the Alaskans who are watching, this process we go through here, which is really about getting us to a bill--that is what we are trying to do so we can have a debate across the aisle, have a discussion about what is the right policy when it comes to jobs and how to make sure we do the right thing regarding our economy. Instead of having to debate, they would rather stop the motion to proceed and end the story.

I rise this evening for the same reason many other folks are talking tonight--in support of the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. I believe we should reward companies that keep Americans working here in our country.

As a former mayor, and really longer than any time I have served in public office, as a small business owner--that is what I spent my life around. I understand the impact of legislation and what it means for a business owner. As I have said in the Budget Committee and on the floor, I am probably one of the few who have filled out--in one of the debates we had a couple weeks ago--1099 forms. I understand what it means for a small businessperson to spend the time to try to build their business and what it means.

Tonight, in my view, it is unacceptable that we currently reward companies that ship American jobs overseas while businesses that are doing their best to provide decent wages and benefits are struggling just to make payroll. We should reward businesses that don't just keep but create jobs here at home. It makes no sense to me, when you think about it--you have business A and business B both doing the same product. But the one that decides to invest in America, to invest in Alaska, who competes against the person across the street who decides to close up and go overseas, who gets tax breaks and special benefits and subsidies and other things, the person here who is working hard every day to keep Americans working is at a disadvantage. It is clearly time that we stop shipping our jobs overseas and make it right here in America.

American manufacturing jobs have been some of the hardest hit by the economic downturn. States that have significant manufacturing bases are those with the highest unemployment rates.

This legislation is a commonsense response to our job crisis. Under the bill, payroll tax relief will be rewarded to companies that hire employees domestically during a 3-year period, beginning now. The tax cut would come in the form of relieving the companies of paying Social Security payroll taxes on each job that was brought back home to this country for the next 2 years.

This legislation also eliminates tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas. I will repeat that because people who might be watching are saying: What do you mean, we give companies tax breaks for moving jobs to another country and not reward people who work here? That is the case. We actually give breaks, which include deducting expenses for companies that close their factories in the United States and move them overseas. I don't know about all other taxpayers, but I am taxpayer and a businessperson, and that seems ridiculous that we would give a tax break to companies that ship jobs overseas. Taxpayers subsidize these companies. As I mentioned, our tax laws currently reward these companies in many different ways for moving jobs overseas.

Here is a startling reality--the data. We hear a lot from the other side, and they are kind of good sound bites and they get on the news and get coverage, but here is the data. This is how people should measure the success or failure of the policy we have had regarding this issue. That is why we need to pass this new legislation. Between February 2001 and February of 2009, almost 4.7 million manufacturing jobs were lost to overseas operations--4.7 million American jobs that were shipped overseas, like a parcel package. They are gone. Between 1999 and 2008, employment of foreign affiliates of American parent corporations grew from 7.8 million jobs to 10.1 million. That is an increase of 2.4 million jobs or 30 percent. Again, there are jobs that have been shipped off, and then these American companies then produce jobs overseas that could have been produced here in this country. But they have not done it.

To my friends across the aisle, many of you seem to have the impression that extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will mean more jobs.

I just got back from a weekend in Alaska, for 2\1/2\ days moving through cities, talking with folks. I have to be honest. Only the people across the aisle are thinking that because that is not what I hear back home. They see through it. The 97 percent who will receive a tax break, a tax cut, middle-class Americans see that benefit. But the small 3 percent, 2.5 percent, they are not going to create jobs with that money, no question about it. As we all remember back in the Bush administration, President Bush decided to extend these tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans in the middle of the Iraq war. The thought was this would spur our economy and create new jobs.

Not surprisingly, the exact opposite happened. The national debt doubled. When President Obama was sworn into office, just before he was sworn in, over half a million jobs were lost just in that month alone before he was sworn in. We have to stop shipping jobs overseas and make it right in America.

I implore my colleagues on the other side to allow the debate, to allow us to proceed. It is not complicated.

I will end on this comment and say, when I was a mayor, anybody could bring any idea to the table. You could debate it. Sometimes we debated until midnight, sometimes we started the next day and debated some more, but ideas were debated.

We are recovering from an economic crisis. We are, at the moment, to look at some new options, new opportunities to have our businesses thrive and move forward. I ask our colleagues on the other side: Allow the debate to occur. As a small businessperson, as a Member of the Senate, I ask them to step to the table and let us move forward.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the score is 10 to 0.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about legislation I am introducing today with support from my fellow senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski.

It is all too rare that we get to talk about successful partnerships between private industry and the Federal Government. This legislation would cement just such a successful partnership between a subsidiary of an Alaska Native Corporation, Doyon Limited and the National Park Service.

Briefly this measure would authorize a special use permit and over the longer term an equal value land trade to facilitate a micro-hydro project within the non-wilderness portion of the Denali National Park. The micro-hydro project would allow Kantishna Roadhouse, a backcountry lodge that accommodates thousands of visitors a year, to substantially reduce their diesel use.

Because the lodge is not connected to any utility grid, it must generate its own power. By converting much of the load to a renewable resource, the lodge would improve local air quality and reduce truck traffic on the single park access road, thus improving the experience for visitors to the lodge and park as a whole. It additionally would help the lodge's bottom line.

The legislation has been developed with the assistance of Alaska Region of the National Park Service, and they are supportive of the project. Eureka Creek, the source of the hydro power, is not a fish- bearing stream, and the Park Service is interested in acquiring the lands to be traded from Doyon ownership.

After a good deal of outreach this summer by Doyon and others, we are aware of no opposition to this permit, land trade and the legislation itself. I want to thank the National Park Service for their willingness to come to the table and work constructively to solve problems. Additionally, I particularly want to thank the senior senator from Alaska and her staff for their work on this legislation. It's been a good partnership and I appreciate her help.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about legislation I am introducing today with support from my fellow senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski.

It is all too rare that we get to talk about successful partnerships between private industry and the Federal Government. This legislation would cement just such a successful partnership between a subsidiary of an Alaska Native Corporation, Doyon Limited and the National Park Service.

Briefly this measure would authorize a special use permit and over the longer term an equal value land trade to facilitate a micro-hydro project within the non-wilderness portion of the Denali National Park. The micro-hydro project would allow Kantishna Roadhouse, a backcountry lodge that accommodates thousands of visitors a year, to substantially reduce their diesel use.

Because the lodge is not connected to any utility grid, it must generate its own power. By converting much of the load to a renewable resource, the lodge would improve local air quality and reduce truck traffic on the single park access road, thus improving the experience for visitors to the lodge and park as a whole. It additionally would help the lodge's bottom line.

The legislation has been developed with the assistance of Alaska Region of the National Park Service, and they are supportive of the project. Eureka Creek, the source of the hydro power, is not a fish- bearing stream, and the Park Service is interested in acquiring the lands to be traded from Doyon ownership.

After a good deal of outreach this summer by Doyon and others, we are aware of no opposition to this permit, land trade and the legislation itself. I want to thank the National Park Service for their willingness to come to the table and work constructively to solve problems. Additionally, I particularly want to thank the senior senator from Alaska and her staff for their work on this legislation. It's been a good partnership and I appreciate her help.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. By any objective standard, Elena Kagan offers a well-rounded combination of academic legal expertise and real world application of law and public policy. The President has nominated Ms. Kagan to a job she may hold for three decades or more, and in which she will have the opportunity to touch the lives of Americans in countless ways. So just being an intelligent and hard-working public servant is not enough for this vital position. That is why I have taken my time and my responsibility seriously, to thoroughly review her record before deciding to support her.

Decisions by the Supreme Court have immediate impacts on the lives of everyday Americans when the rulings are handed down. These decisions may continue to play a role in the lives of Americans for generations. Considering my vote on a Supreme Court nominee, a task I will perform soon for the second time in my brief Senate career, is a duty I take very seriously.

I approach this decision from the perspective of a government chief executive. It is the constitutional role of the President to nominate Supreme Court justices. In the case of a nominee to the Federal courts, especially to the Supreme Court, this choice is not about a President's ability to carry out a stated agenda. Rather, justices on the highest court in the land are there to protect and interpret the Constitution, so the highest standards must be applied.

In my meeting with Solicitor General Kagan, I found her to be intelligent and engaging, and open to hearing my thoughts on what is important to Alaskans. I listened as Ms. Kagan described the way she approached legal issues, and heard from her an approach to the law and the Constitution that indicated she will not be an activist judge. I agree with my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Lindsay Graham, who said the job of a senator is not to second guess the President's judgment in selecting Supreme Court nominees, but to determine if the candidate is qualified, of good character and understands the difference between being a judge and a politician. Ms. Kagan is such a person.

For me as an Alaskan, there were some issues I needed to make front and center in our discussion, especially the rights we enjoy and which the Supreme Court has recently spoken to under the second amendment of the Constitution.

Alaskans take their second amendment rights very seriously. In a State where the daily life for many includes subsistence hunting, personal protection and basic survival, our right to keep and bear arms is not an academic question. It is a fundamental part of our lives. The State of Alaska has gone so far as to pass laws requiring firearms be kept in survival gear carried in private airplanes. Unlike much of the ``Lower 48,'' the wilderness in Alaska is reachable within minutes from even our largest cities. Even in the greater Anchorage area encounters with wildlife are commonplace and serious injuries occur regularly. That is why firearm ownership and use in Alaska transcends the debates in Washington over what the second amendment means.

Much of the opposition to Ms. Kagan's nomination has focused on what some charged was her alleged lack of support for second amendment rights. Some oppose Ms. Kagan's nomination because she worked for Justice Thurgood Marshall and President Bill Clinton. When she was asked by Judiciary Chairman Leahy if, after the Supreme Court's decisions in Heller and McDonald that the second amendment secures an individual's fundamental right to own a firearm and use it for self- defense, Ms. Kagan's response could not have been more clear: ``There is no doubt, Senator Leahy. That is binding precedent and entitled to all respect to binding precedent in any case. That is settled law.'' Instead of second-guessing or making assumptions about her views, I am taking Ms. Kagen at her word.

Even before the Court's decision in McDonald applied the reasoning of Heller beyond the District of Columbia, Ms. Kagan was clear about the fundamental nature of the rights protected by the Second Amendment. During her confirmation hearing to be Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan responded to a question about the meaning of Heller from Senator Grassley: ``There is no question, after Heller, that the second amendment guarantees Americans the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.''' In subsequent questioning, Ms. Kagan responded regarding Heller that she would give that decision and its reasoning ``the full measure of respect that is due to all constitutional decisions of the Court.''

What Elena Kagan said about the second amendment, especially in light of the Heller and McDonald decisions that I supported, cannot be considered anti-gun, or anti-second smendment.

In our meeting, I also asked Ms. Kagan about unique status of Alaska Native people and issues. I pointed out that Alaska is home to nearly half the 562 federal recognized tribes in the United States and that Alaska Natives comprise nearly 20 percent of our State's population. Ms. Kagan admitted to being no expert in ``Indian law,'' but expressed a willingness to learn about the challenges and opportunities facing Alaska Native people. She also expressed support for encouraging the courts to adopt procedures making it easier for people whose first language may not be English to understand court proceedings.

Another significant issue for Alaskans is the Supreme Court's decision in the Exxon Valdez case. Thousands of Alaskans were damaged by that oil spill, yet Exxon took every possible advantage in the U.S. court system to delay payment of damages as long as they could. As a result, an estimated 20 percent of those damaged by the spill died before they could collect any compensation. Ms. Kagan agreed with the tragedy of that case and expressed frustration with it dragging on so long.

Mr. President, because of what I have learned in looking at the career and record of Ms. Kagan, and reviewing her statements and testimony on matters that are important to the people of Alaska I am privileged to serve, I am pleased to confirm Elena Kagan as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. President, today I would like to add to the heartfelt sentiments we have heard expressed by many colleagues and many more

around the country over these past several weeks in paying tribute to our departed colleague, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.

As an American, pondering what Senator Byrd has done, the history he has been a part of, and the path he took from the small towns of southern West Virginia's coalfields, is inspiring. From the perspective of a new Senator, I must say that the life and career of Senator Byrd is more than a little daunting. I have served just shy of 20 months, and I have voted in this Chamber slightly more than 600 times.

Those numbers seem like rounding errors compared to the numbers we have heard over the last several days in reference to the service of Senator Byrd: Elected to nine full terms, more than 51 years in the Senate--more than 4 years longer than the next longest serving Senator; he cast nearly 19,000 votes, 18,689, including 4,705 consecutive votes; he was twice majority leader; served also as Whip, conference secretary, minority leader, and President pro tempore; and he served on the Appropriations Committee continuously since being placed there in 1959 by then-majority leader Lyndon Johnson as a freshman in this body--more than 3 years before I was born and only about 2 weeks after Alaska became a State.

I am told by colleagues who served longer with Senator Byrd that while he was proud of those facts, the record he cherished the most was the time he spent with the love of his life, his childhood sweetheart and wife of 68 years, Erma. Senator Byrd was a man of deep faith, but from what I have heard of them as a couple, I do not doubt that all the glories of the afterlife pale for Senator Byrd compared to rejoining Erma.

I came to the Senate too late to hear most of his greatest speeches, but when he spoke, whether it was about a funding bill or the wars that we continue to wage, you listened. We all felt a great sadness when Senator Kennedy died last year, but many of us probably came to appreciate the depth of the historical significance of his departure from this body months earlier when we heard and saw another of the great legislators in American history, Robert C. Byrd, weep openly and unabashedly as he paid tribute to his friend and colleague. My service with Senator Byrd was nowhere as lengthy as his with Senator Kennedy, but I am profoundly affected by the honor of knowing the man, even for these past 2 years.

In the short time we did serve together, I have still been able to learn from Senator Byrd. He was a statesman and a pillar of this institution, and a genuine historical figure that my son Jacob will learn about in school. But the thing that I will take from watching Senator Byrd that showed every day that we served together was that nothing was more important than the work he did for the people of the State that sent him here. All of us look to the people of our States for guidance on the matters of the day, and certainly Senator Byrd was attuned to the thoughts of the people of West Virginia. But there was more to it than just knowing what the people of his State thought.

His whole career was about making West Virginia a better place, expanding its infrastructure, educating its people, supporting its industries, and providing the circumstances in which economic development could take root and flourish. Improving the lives of the people of his State was what motivated Senator Byrd to come here almost 19,000 times for votes on any number of issues.

As I think of the impact Senator Byrd's career has had on West Virginia, I cannot help but think of the similarities between our two States. Alaska and West Virginia are both mostly rural, energy- producing States with pockets of intractable poverty. It is a mark of respect for his success at changing the world for the better that West Virginia has fewer poverty-stricken residents, and that remote regions of his state are less difficult to travel to and from than when Senator Byrd was first elected to Congress. He was an ardent supporter of the Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC, which was created to help solve the problems of poverty and hopelessness in his State by upgrading insufficient public infrastructure, building and maintaining educational facilities, and providing access to public and private sector assistance to improve health care, foster economic development and diversity, and provide opportunities for the people of the region beyond energy extraction and the few other traditional industries that existed there.

It is no surprise that when my predecessor, Senator Ted Stevens, was looking for a way to improve the lives of Alaskans, he saw in the ARC that his close friend and colleague, Senator Byrd, had worked so hard to support a model for the Denali Commission that he believed could create similar hope and opportunity in our State. My colleagues and I in the Alaska congressional delegation today are just as dedicated to the potential the Denali Commission represents for our State. We can only hope to have as much positive impact on the lives of Alaskans as Senator Byrd had with those of the West Virginians he was so proud to represent.

I do not have as many great stories about Senator Byrd as many of our other colleagues, but I will close with observations about the man, hard at work doing what he knew was right for his people, which inspired me. As the Senate worked to reform the Nation's health care system last year, a number of votes were late at night or early in the morning, and as many will remember, the weather last December was uncharacteristically cold and snowy. As an Alaskan and a relatively young man, getting to the Capitol during a blizzard was not a big ordeal. Watching Senator Byrd, in his nineties and in obvious frail health, make his way to the Senate Chamber time and time again in his wheelchair, including for a final vote very early on the morning of Christmas Eve, was an inspiration. Seeing it then, and reflecting on it in the last several days, made me appreciate more fully the man's dedication to the people he served.

Every State deserves Senators with those motivations, and while I will always marvel at the man's encyclopedic knowledge of the Senate and countless other things, the thing I will emulate about the life and career of Robert C. Byrd, for however long the voters of Alaska choose to have me as their Senator, is that my job is to make the lives of Alaskans better.

I believe Senator Byrd would approve.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to address issues of great concern to me and to all who care about public safety in Alaska Native villages. Last week President Obama signed the Tribal Law and Order bill into law. That legislation passed because Congress recognized the great need to provide more support for the criminal justice system and communities in Indian Country. While this law has some important provisions that will benefit Alaska Native communities, I believe the remoteness and other unique conditions of many Native villages in my State compel us to do more. That is why I am introducing the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2010.

My bill will establish a demonstration project for Alaska Native tribes to allow tribes in Alaska to set up tribal courts, establish tribal ordinances, and to impose sanctions on those people who violate the ordinances. It would enhance current tribal authority, while maintaining the State's primary role and responsibility in criminal matters. Additionally, those communities selected to be part of the demonstration project would be eligible for an Alaska Village Peace Officer grant to serve those communities in a holistic manner.

Unfortunately, because of the vastness of Alaska, too many of our Alaska Native villages lack any law enforcement. Too often, minor cases involving alcohol and domestic abuse go unreported because the nearest State Trooper resides in a hub community, located a long and expensive airplane ride away. Frequently, harsh weather prevents the Troopers from flying into a community even when the most heinous acts have occurred. Approximately 71 villages have a sole unarmed Village Patrol Safety officer, VPSO, who must be on duty 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. These hard-working

VPSOs are underpaid, and while communities try to provide some housing and heating assistance, in places where fuel oil can cost as much as $8 a gallon, it can be difficult to sustain the funding for these public servants.

As one who believes strongly in community involvement, I strongly believe tribes in Alaska should have a role in their law enforcement needs. This local control not only provides security for the communities, but also encourages local acceptance of the judicial system as a whole. With the changes in place that my bill would require, residents of Alaska Native villages will see a system that does more than just fly in after a tragedy has occurred.

Just recently communities in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta have experienced an alarming suicide cluster. Unfortunately Alaska Native communities have grown accustomed to alarming suicide rates, but in the past two months there have been at least nine self-inflicted deaths in these villages. Nick Tucker, an elder in Emmonak, recently wrote a letter to the State of Alaska's rural affairs director to try to bring attention to the issue. Part of his letter begged for the Governor to call the legislature in session and said it is no longer acceptable for them to wait for the Troopers because ``in the villages, they take forever.'' Part of this continuing suicide cycle is the presence of drugs and alcohol. Predators do not fear police action when they bootleg alcohol or sell drugs in villages, because there is no police presence. One can walk into a village, speak with an elder and that person will tell you who is bootlegging alcohol.

These communities are full of rich heritage and culture, however many have high unemployment due to the remoteness and lack of opportunity in the village. Most economic development in Alaska happens in either the metropolitan areas, or in very remote areas for resource extraction. Many of the villages have unemployment rates above 20 percent. Alaska Natives survival is highly dependent on the land. They subsist on game, berries, and fish. However, as hunting and fishing stocks dwindle many people are feeling disconnected from their heritage and have turned to drugs and alcohol. Too many people in the villages feel isolated and lack a connection, both figuratively and literally. Though educational attainment in the last 40 years has increased dramatically, the dropout rate in Alaska still hovers at 40 percent. Too many of our young men and women have lost hope and are losing a sense of community.

We must give our communities the tools necessary to protect themselves. Too often, we pour resources into urban areas, but become stuck when we try to work toward solutions for our most remote communities. We should no longer allow the answer from anyone to be ``we don't have the resources.'' Alaska Native villages are vibrant, strong communities and we should do everything in our power to work with these communities and answer their calls for help.

I encourage my colleagues to join me on this legislation, and ask for the full Senate to consider and pass it to provide help to some of the places in our country most in need.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to address issues of great concern to me and to all who care about public safety in Alaska Native villages. Last week President Obama signed the Tribal Law and Order bill into law. That legislation passed because Congress recognized the great need to provide more support for the criminal justice system and communities in Indian Country. While this law has some important provisions that will benefit Alaska Native communities, I believe the remoteness and other unique conditions of many Native villages in my State compel us to do more. That is why I am introducing the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2010.

My bill will establish a demonstration project for Alaska Native tribes to allow tribes in Alaska to set up tribal courts, establish tribal ordinances, and to impose sanctions on those people who violate the ordinances. It would enhance current tribal authority, while maintaining the State's primary role and responsibility in criminal matters. Additionally, those communities selected to be part of the demonstration project would be eligible for an Alaska Village Peace Officer grant to serve those communities in a holistic manner.

Unfortunately, because of the vastness of Alaska, too many of our Alaska Native villages lack any law enforcement. Too often, minor cases involving alcohol and domestic abuse go unreported because the nearest State Trooper resides in a hub community, located a long and expensive airplane ride away. Frequently, harsh weather prevents the Troopers from flying into a community even when the most heinous acts have occurred. Approximately 71 villages have a sole unarmed Village Patrol Safety officer, VPSO, who must be on duty 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. These hard-working

VPSOs are underpaid, and while communities try to provide some housing and heating assistance, in places where fuel oil can cost as much as $8 a gallon, it can be difficult to sustain the funding for these public servants.

As one who believes strongly in community involvement, I strongly believe tribes in Alaska should have a role in their law enforcement needs. This local control not only provides security for the communities, but also encourages local acceptance of the judicial system as a whole. With the changes in place that my bill would require, residents of Alaska Native villages will see a system that does more than just fly in after a tragedy has occurred.

Just recently communities in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta have experienced an alarming suicide cluster. Unfortunately Alaska Native communities have grown accustomed to alarming suicide rates, but in the past two months there have been at least nine self-inflicted deaths in these villages. Nick Tucker, an elder in Emmonak, recently wrote a letter to the State of Alaska's rural affairs director to try to bring attention to the issue. Part of his letter begged for the Governor to call the legislature in session and said it is no longer acceptable for them to wait for the Troopers because ``in the villages, they take forever.'' Part of this continuing suicide cycle is the presence of drugs and alcohol. Predators do not fear police action when they bootleg alcohol or sell drugs in villages, because there is no police presence. One can walk into a village, speak with an elder and that person will tell you who is bootlegging alcohol.

These communities are full of rich heritage and culture, however many have high unemployment due to the remoteness and lack of opportunity in the village. Most economic development in Alaska happens in either the metropolitan areas, or in very remote areas for resource extraction. Many of the villages have unemployment rates above 20 percent. Alaska Natives survival is highly dependent on the land. They subsist on game, berries, and fish. However, as hunting and fishing stocks dwindle many people are feeling disconnected from their heritage and have turned to drugs and alcohol. Too many people in the villages feel isolated and lack a connection, both figuratively and literally. Though educational attainment in the last 40 years has increased dramatically, the dropout rate in Alaska still hovers at 40 percent. Too many of our young men and women have lost hope and are losing a sense of community.

We must give our communities the tools necessary to protect themselves. Too often, we pour resources into urban areas, but become stuck when we try to work toward solutions for our most remote communities. We should no longer allow the answer from anyone to be ``we don't have the resources.'' Alaska Native villages are vibrant, strong communities and we should do everything in our power to work with these communities and answer their calls for help.

I encourage my colleagues to join me on this legislation, and ask for the full Senate to consider and pass it to provide help to some of the places in our country most in need.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to honor four members of Alaska's military family who lost their lives in a tragic airplane accident in Anchorage last week.

MAJ Michael Freyholtz and MAJ Aaron Malone were pilots assigned to the Alaska Air National Guard's 249th Airlift Squadron.

CAPT Jeffrey Hill was a pilot assigned to Elmendorf Air Force Base's 517th Airlift Squadron.

And SMSgt Thomas Cicardo was a loadmaster with the Alaska Air National Guard's 249th Airlift Squadron.

Last Wednesday evening, these airmen were honing their skills in a C- 17 aircraft when it went down in the woods not far from downtown Anchorage.

Every Alaskan has been touched by this loss. It is a terrible tragedy for our State, where we consider Alaska's military installations extensions of our communities.

Service members are part of our extended Alaskan family.

Today in a large Elmendorf airplane hangar, thousands of Alaskans are gathering to mourn the loss of these brave airmen.

Each of the airmen who perished on July 28th played a pivotal role in standing up C-17 operations and training in Alaska.

They contributed to our Nation's defense and to the State of Alaska.

Major Malone was a C-17 pilot on leave from Alaska Airlines, his place of employment, to help stand up the 249th Airlift Squadron in Alaska.

Alaska was Major Malone's home State. In 2008, he transferred to the Alaska National Guard.

As a highly regarded airman, he became a C-17 instructor pilot. He proudly served his country for more than 12 years in the Air National Guard.

During his time of service, Major Malone flew the F-16 in defense of our airspace after 9/11, deployed to the Korean Peninsula, and flew missions in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

MAJ Michael Freyholtz was a member of the Alaska Air National Guard since 2007, when he left active duty.

During his time of service, he flew more than 600 hours of combat service in support of Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

He was recognized for his distinction as a pilot; he was awarded the Air Medal for his service.

Originally from Minnesota, Major Freyholtz was the first non-Alaskan pilot to help stand up the 249th Airlift Squadron.

A C-17 pilot since obtaining his wings from the Air Force in 2000 and a superior airman, he most recently flew with the Air Force Thunderbirds.

According to his loved ones, CAPT Jeffrey Hill cherished being a part of Alaska's 3rd Wing, to which he was assigned in 2007.

With his humor and positive attitude, he was an inspiration to his fellow airmen in the 517th Airlift Squadron as the Operations Flight commander and instructor in the tactical airlift mission.

He encouraged his fellow airmen to stay fit. He was a mentor to his fellow comrades.

A fitness buff and an outdoorsman, Captain Hill took advantage of all Alaska had to offer--hunting, fishing, camping and hiking.

With over 28 years in the Armed Forces, SMSgt Thomas Cicardo was handpicked to be part of the initial personnel to stand up the 249th Airlift Squadron.

He was a highly decorated combat veteran with more than 30 awards and decorations.

His hometown was Anchorage, and he contributed greatly to the State of Alaska with his service.

Sergeant Cicardo was a home-grown hero. During the 11 years he spent in search and rescue, he is credited with saving more than 66 lives in Alaska.

Helping to stand up the 249th Airlift Squadron, SMSgt Cicado formulated training and evaluation functions in the squadron. Due to his efforts, the squadron received an outstanding rating during the last inspection.

Every Alaskan is deeply saddened by the loss of these airmen. They are sons, they are fathers, and they are brothers. Today, I very much wanted to be with the families of these brave Alaskans in person. I am honored to offer my tribute and condolences to them and Alaska's entire military community on the floor of the Senate.

I ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of silence in honor of the memories of Major Freyholtz, Major Malone, Captain Hill, and Senior Master Sergeant Cicardo.

Let us pay tribute to their selfless service and sacrifice to our Nation and to Alaska.

(Moment of silence.)

Their service to our country and service in Alaska as Arctic Warriors will always be remembered.

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

Mr. President, I come for a few minutes on the floor. I am down here with Senator Wyden from Oregon, and I want to talk a little bit and probably in an informal way about a piece of legislation, a bipartisan piece of legislation on tax fairness and simplification.

There is one thing I hear a lot about when I go back home and when I was running for office, when I was mayor, and serving in our city government--how do you simplify the process of taxes, making them fairer for the middle class.

For all my time prior to serving in the Senate, I have thought about these ideas and ways we can move forward. When I was mayor, we simplified the business taxes for our small businesses, making it easier and simpler, lowering their tax burden, for our residents doing the same thing.

Here I am in the Senate and I look at lots of legislation every day, as I know you do, Mr. President, and I know the Senator from Oregon does. We see all sorts of ideas created and put on the table, and one which intrigued me was the Wyden-Gregg bill, which is focused on simplifying the tax paperwork mill, I call it, that we are subjected to every single year as individuals; the mound of paper we have to fill out not only as an individual but as a small businessperson trying to go through the rules and regulations and what is a reasonable amount of taxation that we should pay; also, the complicated system in what is owed or hopefully refunded back to us because we overpaid the IRS.

As I looked at a lot of different ideas, I have to tell you this idea--as we debate here on the floor a small business plan, small business ideas--sooner or later we will debate the Bush tax cuts and what we will do with those. To me, there is a simpler solution when it comes to issues of taxation, what we are going to do lowering the tax burden on small business, lowering the tax burden on the middle class, and simplifying it. Today there are so many different things we have to worry about and focus on: multiple retirement accounts we are trying to balance, trying to figure out who is a dependent, who is not, doing our returns--how to simplify this so our life is less burdened by the IRS.

I want to first commend Senator Wyden and Senator Gregg for their work in multiple years pushing this issue forward, trying to figure out how we can help the middle class and the small business people of this country lower their tax burden; getting the IRS, as we would say back home in Alaska, out of our pockets. They have done a good job.

If there is no objection from the Presiding Officer, if it is OK, I will ask Senator Wyden to join me here with couple of questions. Sometimes you look at these bills and you wonder are they too good to be true. Here we have, if I am not mistaken, not only the Heritage Foundation and some of the more conservative groups as well as the more liberal groups, the Brookings Institution and others, commenting positively about this legislation. In my year and a half here I have not seen that on anything.

We have Republicans and Democrats who are looking at it positively. We have business groups that look at it positively because it lessens their burden and allows them to reinvest in their businesses, to grow this economy. It reduces the deficit, which I know Senator Wyden, myself, and others--like yourself, Mr. President--are concerned about-- the growing deficit and the burden it may lay onto future generations.

But it also has true tax reduction, tax relief for the middle class and businesses. When you see something such as that--and, by the way, you can also do this in one page, a one-page return. When you hear those kinds of things, those claims, you are wondering, What is the catch? What does the small print say? What are you going to get hooked into and pay a pretty good price for later? We have been going through it, I have been going through it. Actually when you first introduced it before I was a Senator, I looked at this legislation when I campaigned. Here I am now in the Senate with a chance to participate, to see what we can do to accelerate this.

We are going to talk a lot about the tax extender bill and other tax issues in the future. But my view is it is time to reform the system. The system is broken. The middle class is paying higher than they should. Small businesses are burdened with incredible paperwork and increased costs. It is time that we reform the system and do something that is dramatic and makes a difference.

Today it is an honor to be down here. Senator Wyden, I hope doesn't mind; I have extracted off of every piece of his Web site every document related to this, the research to understand it, to make sure I do not see that small print that later I might regret. So far what I have seen is small print, big print, that I do not regret and that is why a few weeks ago I cosponsored the legislation to be one of those who joined the team, to move us forward to real reform.

I know when I joined, Senator Bob Bennett from Utah also joined on-- again, focused on the same issues we are, again keeping it a bipartisan, fair, simplification of taxes.

No one likes to talk about taxes. No one loves to be around April 15. But the fact is, it does occur. So how do we make the burden less on middle-class America?

How do we make the burden less on small businesses? This bill does it. So, again, I say to the Senator from Oregon, I wish to make sure I am saying the right stuff. So maybe the Senator could comment back to me. But it does have a positive impact. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the numbers, for example, on average for a small business, they are pretty much going to be guaranteed they are going to save at least $5,000 in taxes and more, depending on the size of their business.

For middle-class America, they are clearly going to save. Their rates will be lower, which means their cash out of their pocket will be less to the IRS, meaning the IRS is not reaching in there, not only in your front pocket but your back pocket. They will have less capacity to do that.

Tell me, I hope I am right on this and I do not want to mislead--the public is watching--but also make sure I am correct.

If I may interject.

That is actually right. One thing I thought, wow, $300 billion tax relief, predominately for middle-class America. I thought my phone would be ringing off the hook with people saying: Wow, what a great relief. If we got 1 e-mail on this out of the 1,000 or so e-mails and phone calls we get every single week, I would be surprised.

Because, as the Senator said, it is a complicated system we have, and when we do relief, no one will even notice it. That is why I was so attracted to Senator Wyden and Senator Gregg's proposal, because it is reform. It is changing the system for the better. It is ensuring that middle-class America, making sure small businesses benefit.

That is when I was shocked, actually. I know if I was back in the mayor's office when we did the small business relief, making sure 90- plus percent of our small businesses did not have to fill out the paperwork anymore and got relief, I heard from them because they were very appreciative because they could reinvest it. But we made it real because we reformed it, not just tinkered with it as you talk about how the past Congresses have done.

To the Senator from Oregon, I will close and say thank you very much. It is kind of like the Senator said, a fork in the road. It is a moment. We can continue to do business as usual, tinker with it a little bit here, a little bit there, have special interests kind of run the show or we can turn it back to the American people by helping them keep more money in their pockets, helping small business keep more money in their pockets. Let them invest in the economy, as the data that I have seen around this can show, that over a 10-year spread, you will add over $2 trillion to the GDP, based on small business reinvesting those dollars instead of the IRS grabbing them from them.

This is a positive step. I do think, I hope as our colleagues--a couple of them are on the floor and we will stop in a second so they can get their time to do their presentations. But I know and I hope other colleagues are watching and listening because this is a moment maybe in this body that we can actually do some significant reform in a bipartisan way.

I do not sit on Banking. I do not sit on Finance. Some people have asked me: Well, if you are not on those committees, why are you interested in this? Well, simply because it has a simplification of the tax return system. It lowers middle-class taxes and those on small business. That is what drives this economy. That is what we should be focused on.

So I credit these Senators for stepping up, kind of plowing the field in a way. I am a latecomer to this. But I am going to be one of those who is taking that plow and putting a high-speed engine on it so we can keep plowing more and getting more folks, hopefully, on board. So, at the end of the day, the American people can look at this Congress, Republicans and Democrats, and say: They did something that reformed the system, made it simpler in our lives, saved the middle-class taxpayer money and improved and lowered the taxes for small business.

Now the business economy is humming along and investing those dollars to grow this economy and keeping those jobs right here in the country.

So thank you for allowing us a few minutes to, hopefully, start to engage the Congress as we move into tinkering with the Tax Code, so we do something different and we reform the Tax Code for the betterment of this country.

I appreciate the Senator coming up for a couple of minutes while I echo the concerns of the Senator from Louisiana. I listened to this debate that was going on for hour after hour and, as a new Member, I have to echo what the Senator said.

The committee worked on it. They worked very hard, and not just the last few weeks. For the last year and a half it seems like she has been working on this--a good small business package that ensures that the small business communities of this country in my State and your State and the State of the Presiding Officer can move forward, can advance. The Senator did not come to agreement on some, so she came to the floor. She worked an amendment and 60 people supported it. That is part of the bill now. That is part of the process.

I don't know about this idea of going behind closed doors and trying to work it out when you have done that. You have done the people's business in front of the people. That is exactly how, I thought, as a new Member of this body, it works. You fight your fight in the committee, you win or lose, and then you get a chance down here hopefully to offer an amendment. It might pass, it might not pass.

I think what we have tried to do--and I commend the Senator for it-- in this bill, to echo what the Senator said, is about $12 billion that the small business community will not have to pay to the IRS. It will save them money. It will get the IRS out of their pockets. This is good for small business.

When they made the comment on their side this might be killing time, they are killing small business. Every day we wait to not allow them an opportunity to reduce their taxes, to save them money, to give them a chance to expand their businesses, is outrageous.

The second piece, on the loan package, is a great loan package. No one is forcing the community banks to do it; it is an option. If they do it, they get a lower rate that the small businesses then benefit from and create new jobs and more jobs. They are the creators of the new economy and long-term economy of this country. Fifty-six percent of the employment in my State is from small business. This is a good plan.

Why they want to go into all these other amendments that have no relationship to small business--it is appalling. That is why the American people are so mad at Congress, why we have

an 11-percent popularity rating, because people want to put on their special deals so they can say some statements in a campaign, when we should be focused on small business. We can all say then we helped save this country from another economic collapse because we actually invested in the people who build jobs, who work every single day. As we sit here and wrangle over a couple of amendments, they are trying to make their businesses survive.

I was not planning to speak. I just got a little agitated. Again, as a new Member I get so frustrated with all these political gimmicks they want to add on the bills when we should be focused on one thing. Small business is what we need to protect. I have been in the small business world. I have taken out these 7(a) loans that SBA does. I have dealt with the 504 loans. I have seen the impact in my State, tripling the amount of small business loans because we made adjustments in the Recovery Act that you are now trying to extend. It works. It actually creates real jobs.

For us to sit down here and have the other side come down and say we are killing time--they are killing small business every day.

I got a little agitated. I wanted to come down and say my piece. As a person who had my first business license at the age of 16 and still continue to have business licenses today--my wife is a small business owner--we understand what businesses go through.

When the chairman of the Finance Committee talked about the 179 depreciation, accelerate it, that is a huge benefit. If you can write off $250,000 in the first year and put in the 30-percent tax bracket, that is a $75,000-plus savings, hard cash now that small businesses can generate and put into their businesses. I don't know how many people on the other side have been in small businesses and have had to struggle and deal with their bankers and deal with tax returns and all that. I have. These provisions will make a difference and create jobs, not only today but in the future.

I commend the chairwoman for what she is doing. I agree, it is a simple solution. Let's move on, save our businesses, save our country, and protect the jobs we need to have in this country.

I will stop there before I go on.

Will the Senator from Louisiana yield? I ask the Senator to yield for a minute.

Mr. President, I wanted to come to the Chamber. I was watching on the floor last night, and I watched the Senator a little bit ago as I came out of a meeting. I am not scheduled to be here. But as a small businessperson all my life--my first business license was at age 14. My next big venture was at age 18. I have been in the vending business, the real estate business, the developing business. I have been a restaurant owner. I can go through a shopping list. My wife owns four retail stores, a small business woman. She started her business selling smoked salmon on a street corner in downtown Anchorage. She now employs 30-plus people, multiple stores, and works to engage other young, small business people to move forward.

There is no question that the legislation the Senator from Louisiana has been working on--the broader issue on small businesses but specifically the loan fund--is critical. She is right.

The Senator's point about how the big banks got theirs and left the small business community literally, not on Main Street, not even close to Main Street--they were kicked off Main Street. I thank Senator Landrieu for making this a big issue, pushing forward on it, and also working with Republicans to try to bring them over. It sounds as if she got one so far. I think he has made the right decision. He has seen the impact on small businesses in his communities.

The Senator from Louisiana was on fire last night, I have to say. She was making the point that this is the time to stand for small businesses because they are the ones that are going to rebuild this economy, they are the ones that are going to hire people not next year, not 3 years from now because they want to hoard their profits. They are going to, as the economy recovers, hire immediately.

The small businessperson who has two or three people working for them and their business increases 10, 20 percent, the odds are they are going to hire someone the next day.

That is the power of this lending act, this amendment that is critical. I want to emphasize that point and thank my colleague because, as one of the few small business people in this body, one who has had to knock on those bankers' doors to try to get a few dollars out of them to take a dream and make it reality, or one who has seen small business and helped them expand, I again thank you. This is going to have the biggest bang. As to the $30 billion, no one is forcing it onto these community banks either; it is an option. If they want to help small businesses--I know many come to your office, come to my colleagues on the Democratic side--$30 billion leverages to $300 billion. This is a real economic boon and a real opportunity, and is going to build small businesses.

I thank my colleague for giving me these couple of minutes. I thank the Senators from Florida for teaming up and also recognizing the value of this.