Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill entitled the Service Members Permanent Change of Station Relief Act--or PCS Relief Act. I am proud to introduce this legislation and thank my cosponsor Senator Patty Murray. This bill will provide our servicemembers and their families much-needed financial relief during these hard economic times.

Like most families, our servicemembers are pinching their pennies too. Unfortunately, often they incur many unnecessary financial burdens related to their service and their sacrifice. For instance, right now, our servicemembers with spouses and children are only reimbursed for shipping one vehicle to or from Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam during a permanent change of station. This means if they get directed to move to a military base in Alaska from Texas, or to Texas from Alaska, they must pay to transport a second car themselves, or they must sell their vehicle and purchase a new car at the next location. This can be a costly option.

However, many military families cannot afford to ship a second vehicle or purchase another car. Without a second vehicle, spouses and children who accompany a servicemember on a permanent change of station may be unable to hold a job, run daily errands, or otherwise participate in their new communities. Many States have large military bases, such as Joint Base Elmendorf and Fort Richardson in Alaska. With housing on one end and base services on another, some families cannot even get to the grocery store or take their children to a doctor in an emergency.

Colleagues, it is unacceptable that we put our military families in a position where they have to make a choice between the inability to meet daily needs and take care of their family in an emergency, or pay more than $1,500 to ship a second vehicle. Under the PCS Relief Act, our military families will be able to ship a second car to and from Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam to ease the hardships and alleviate needless costs.

To further alleviate needless costs, the legislation will increase the gas mileage reimbursement rate during a permanent change in station. Currently, when our personnel drive from one military base to the next on their government-directed move, they are reimbursed less than half the amount they get under temporary duty assignments. The temporary duty reimbursement rate reflects the true cost of operating a vehicle. The current PCS reimbursement rate of 16 cents per mile does not, creating yet another financial burden for servicemembers.

It doesn't make any sense that gas mileage reimbursement rates are different amounts for PCS and TDY. Our servicemembers get official orders to move. It is not optional.

They are both official business expenditures. We already ask so much of our servicemembers and their families. They are fighting two wars. They move at the military services' direction, relocating themselves and their families to new military bases every few years. It is unfair we are asking them to pay out of pocket on these government-directed moves, or experience unwarranted and pointless hardships due to financial constraints.

In these tough economic times, it is more important than ever that we show our support for our servicemembers and their families. Relieving stress and strain during a permanent change in station is the least we can do. I ask my colleagues to support the Service Members PCS Relief Act.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill entitled the Service Members Permanent Change of Station Relief Act--or PCS Relief Act. I am proud to introduce this legislation and thank my cosponsor Senator Patty Murray. This bill will provide our servicemembers and their families much-needed financial relief during these hard economic times.

Like most families, our servicemembers are pinching their pennies too. Unfortunately, often they incur many unnecessary financial burdens related to their service and their sacrifice. For instance, right now, our servicemembers with spouses and children are only reimbursed for shipping one vehicle to or from Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam during a permanent change of station. This means if they get directed to move to a military base in Alaska from Texas, or to Texas from Alaska, they must pay to transport a second car themselves, or they must sell their vehicle and purchase a new car at the next location. This can be a costly option.

However, many military families cannot afford to ship a second vehicle or purchase another car. Without a second vehicle, spouses and children who accompany a servicemember on a permanent change of station may be unable to hold a job, run daily errands, or otherwise participate in their new communities. Many States have large military bases, such as Joint Base Elmendorf and Fort Richardson in Alaska. With housing on one end and base services on another, some families cannot even get to the grocery store or take their children to a doctor in an emergency.

Colleagues, it is unacceptable that we put our military families in a position where they have to make a choice between the inability to meet daily needs and take care of their family in an emergency, or pay more than $1,500 to ship a second vehicle. Under the PCS Relief Act, our military families will be able to ship a second car to and from Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam to ease the hardships and alleviate needless costs.

To further alleviate needless costs, the legislation will increase the gas mileage reimbursement rate during a permanent change in station. Currently, when our personnel drive from one military base to the next on their government-directed move, they are reimbursed less than half the amount they get under temporary duty assignments. The temporary duty reimbursement rate reflects the true cost of operating a vehicle. The current PCS reimbursement rate of 16 cents per mile does not, creating yet another financial burden for servicemembers.

It doesn't make any sense that gas mileage reimbursement rates are different amounts for PCS and TDY. Our servicemembers get official orders to move. It is not optional.

They are both official business expenditures. We already ask so much of our servicemembers and their families. They are fighting two wars. They move at the military services' direction, relocating themselves and their families to new military bases every few years. It is unfair we are asking them to pay out of pocket on these government-directed moves, or experience unwarranted and pointless hardships due to financial constraints.

In these tough economic times, it is more important than ever that we show our support for our servicemembers and their families. Relieving stress and strain during a permanent change in station is the least we can do. I ask my colleagues to support the Service Members PCS Relief Act.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on a resolution I have cosigned celebrating Volunteers In Service To America, or VISTA, on its 45th anniversary and recognizing its contribution to the fight against poverty.

This resolution will demonstrate the great appreciation this country has for its volunteers, specifically honoring the 45th anniversary of the VISTA Program.

Last year nearly 50 VISTA volunteers provided service in Alaska. These citizens are vital to fighting poverty in our State. The success of this program is evident in the programs it has left behind such as Head Start, job training plans, and credit unions. From its beginnings in 1965 to today, VISTA has dedicated hard work, time, and innovation to lift Americans all over the country out of poverty.

While the mission to fight against poverty has a long history, VISTA has continued to adapt to various localities and challenges to provide new and inspired solutions. Alaska boasts many past and present VISTA volunteers. Many of them have become prominent in Alaska's public and private sectors.

In Alaska, John Shively came to the state with VISTA from New York State with the intention of staying for 1 year. He became involved in local government in Alaska and was involved in the Native lands settlements of early statehood. He later became the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, overseeing more than 80 million acres of State land. He has also been a regent for the University of Alaska, and the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce was proud to award John Shively the title ``Outstanding Alaskan of the Year'' in 2009.

Willie Hensley is an Alaska Native and one of the many successful residents of Alaska. He was a VISTA volunteer and went on to serve in the Alaska State Legislature. He founded the NANA Native Corporation after working hard to ensure equitable settlement of Alaska Native land claims. He is one of the founding members of the Alaska Federation of Natives and is a well known author.

John Shively and Willie Hensley are just two examples of the thousands of VISTA volunteers who have served Alaska and her people. VISTA is a program serving all Americans with the focus on lifting poor Americans out of poverty so their futures can be as bright as the northern lights. VISTA's 45 years of service to the country has made a difference in so many lives, in Alaska and across the Nation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to have filed an amendment that would give Alaska Native corporations, ANCs, parity for an important tax incentive encouraging the permanent protection of land through the charitable donation of a conservation easement.

America's wildlife, waters, and land are an invaluable part of our Nation's heritage. It is imperative to preserve these natural treasures for future generations. Congress long ago concluded that it was good public policy to encourage the charitable contribution of conservation easements to organizations dedicated to maintaining natural habitats or open spaces help protect the Nation's heritage. A conservation easement creates a legally enforceable land preservation agreement between a willing landowner and another organization. The purpose of a conservation easement is to protect permanently land from certain forms of development or use. The property that is the subject to the easement remains the private property of the landowner. The organization holding the easement must monitor future uses of the land to ensure compliance with the terms of the easement and to enforce the terms if a violation occurs.

In 2006, Congress enhanced the charitable tax deduction for conservation easements in order to encourage such gifts. With the 2006 legislation, Congress temporarily increased the maximum deduction limit for individuals donating qualified conservation easements from 30 percent to 50 percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. Congress also created an exception for qualified farmers or ranchers, which are nonpublicly traded corporations or individuals whose gross income from the trade or business of farming is greater than 50 percent of the taxpayer's gross income. In the case of a qualified farmer or rancher, the limitation increased from 30 percent to 100 percent. The 2008 farm bill extended the temporary rules for 2 additional years to charitable contributions made before December 31, 2009.

Unfortunately, the way the law was crafted has disadvantaged a number of important landowners in my home State. Alaska Native corporations, ANCs, own nearly 90 percent of the private land in Alaska, including some of the most scenic and resource rich. However, although they are very similar to the small communal family farms that are eligible, subsistence-based Alaskan Native communities are ineligible for these important new tax incentives. 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. Members of Alaska Native communities continue to have a deeply symbiotic relationship with the land even today. Much like their ancestors, many Native Alaskan communities engage in traditional subsistence activities, with nearly 70 percent of their food coming from the land or adjacent waters. For many communities, subsistence is an economic necessity considering both the lack of economic development and the cost and difficulty involved in purchasing food. For example, in Kotzebue a community in northwestern Alaska, milk costs nearly $10 per gallon. In Buckland, a village home to approximately 400 people, a pound of hamburger--when it is actually available--costs $14.

In Alaska, the Native corporations have an important role to be stewards of the land. Their shareholders see themselves as the caretakers of the land and water as their ancestors have for thousands of years. Nonetheless, in Alaska today this means they have to balance the need for resource development and the need to cultivate the land for subsistence activities. The traditional lifestyles of Native Alaskans are under increasing stress from outside influences. Population growth and the pressure to pursue cash-generating activities have increased the desire for substantial development, significantly adding to the ecological stress on already fragile ecosystems. Without permanent protection, their lands could be developed in a manner that would destroy its ability to support the traditional ways and subsistence lifestyles crucial to Alaskan Native communities. Making use of tax incentives available to other Americans will make it easier for Native communities to make the right decisions for their shareholders.

Today, Alaska Native communities are not eligible for the 50 percent deduction available to individuals because they are federally chartered as C corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, ANCSA. This leaves Alaska Natives without the ability to convert to an eligible entity as other landowners can. In addition, most Alaska Native corporations do not have sufficient gross income from the trade or business of what is considered traditional farming to be eligible for the 100 percent deduction available to qualified farmers or ranchers. This is in spite of the fact that as a group the Alaska Native shareholders of Alaska Native corporations receive far more in subsistence benefits than they receive in income from the Alaska Native Corporation. As a result, Alaska Native corporations do not have the same ability to offset the cost to permanently protect their properties, which contain important wildlife, fish, and other habitats, through donations of qualified conservation easements.

This amendment will allow Alaska Native corporations to protect these important wildlife habitats, many used for subsistence, by providing an enhanced deduction for qualified conservation easements. The amendment modifies section 170(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code by creating a new subsection that provides Alaska Native corporations with a deduction for donations of certain qualified conservation easements. In order to be eligible, a qualified charitable conservation contribution must: (1) otherwise qualify under section 170(h)(1); (2) be made by a Native corporation; and (3) be land that was conveyed by ANCSA. The corporations would be limited to 10 percent of their land allotment under ANCSA. Under section 170(b)(2)(iii)(I), ``Native Corporation'' is defined by ANCSA, section 3(m). Under section 170(b)(2)(i), the maximum deduction limit would be set at 100 percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. If the taxpayer has deductions in excess of the applicable percentage-of-income limitation, section 170(b)(2)(ii) would allow the taxpayer to carry-forward the deduction for up to 15 years.

Congress must act to assist Alaska Native communities in permanently protecting their culturally, historically, and ecologically significant land, preserving the communities and their rich traditions in the process. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions during today's session.

I thank the Senator very much.

I have a couple questions in regard to the bill. I will probably have more later, but, first, remind me and the

people who are watching what the unemployment rate for our country is today.

On a national basis.

In your State, it is 11 percent?

In my State, it is 9 percent.

I will lay out a couple points. In my State, the 9 percent, which is one of the highest in years for us, one of the highest numbers ever in a long time, but when you look at it by region--and I am curious if in your State it has similar impacts like this--for example, 9 percent is a lot, no question about it, but in the Aleutians East Borough in Alaska it is 20.2 percent; in Bethel it is 14.8 percent; in Aleutians West Borough it is 13.7 percent; in the Northwest Arctic Borough it is 12.89 percent; in Kenai Borough it is 12.3 percent; in Mat-Su it is 10.4 percent. Those are examples. The number is high for our State. It is one of the highest in many years. But it really does not tell the whole story.

I ask the Senator, do you have similar circumstances that are regionally higher than the average for your State?

They have given up. They have lost faith.

I will ask if I can read something toward a question. As you drill down--that is what we are doing here a little bit, and your answer to my question is what I wanted to ask to make sure I was clear on that. It is not just the average that we should always be thinking about, but how do we drill down?

When I got back from my break, I received this e-mail. I am sure you have similar e-mails. That is going to be my question. What kind of responses have you gotten from those who are unemployed?

Here is one from my State:

. . . I implore you as your first order of business upon

your return from the snow--

Which I thought was very interesting--

and recess to extend the emergency unemployment benefits

through the end of 2010 that are due to expire on the 28th of

Feb. Thank you.

He was thanking me in advance for something this gentleman believes we will do because it is right. This gentleman is 46 years old, a professional in the legal field. He had applied for over 30 different jobs. He has had two interviews. He is still unable to get a job. He is Jeff from Eagle River. I will not use his last name. He did not authorize me to do that. But just reading this letter tells me, why are we not doing this?

I am a new Member. Like the Senator from Oregon, I have been here a little over a year. I have the same question he had on, literally, the $1 trillion that was unfunded, given to the richest of the rich. It has never been revoked or changed, but it was funded by whom? Not by this body but on the backs of people like my son who is 7\1/2\ years old, who will pay for the richest of the rich. I do not call it a tax cut; I call it a tax scheme. To me, that is outrageous when I think about it.

So I associate my comments with those of the Senator from Oregon. As a new Member, this is not necessarily new to me, but being here in the Chamber and watching this process over the last year and a half, this, to me, seems so simple. These are the people who are hurting the most. Yet when it comes time to do a small item of a $10 billion extension to allow them to make sure, come Monday, they know they can provide for their family, as this gentleman here who is 46 years old--it is just shocking to me and unbelievable.

I am assuming the Senator from Illinois receives these same kinds of letters every day from people who are stressed and concerned. And they are not out there looking for a handout; they are looking at someone in our position to assist them in this unbelievable recession we are facing. Is that similar to what the Senator receives?

I thank the Senator. I have other questions, but I know there are others who are standing to ask questions. But I have a question on the small business fund and the Medicare component, which are vitally important to keep our economy moving. I will withhold and ask those questions in a few minutes.

Will the Senator yield?

I know we talked about unemployment which is a significant piece of this bill. I also want to point out there are other pieces. I want to make sure I am correct. Maybe the Senator could clarify this.

I know he mentioned in the very early hours when we started this discussion that there were issues that deal with small business, seniors, and it has two other major components.

Is it correct that this bill also deals with seniors and small businesses?

I appreciate the Senator's constant reminder that this debate is about real people. I don't know what the debates were in years past. I was not here, as Senator McCaskill and Senator Merkley mentioned. I was not here. People read and watch what is going on. They see right through what is going on: The wealthiest of the wealthiest get the privileges of this body, and people working every single day and those now unemployed ask for a little bit of help to make sure they can make it through these tough times, and the other side of the aisle turns their back on them.

You used the example of seniors. In Alaska, the Medicare reimbursement rate is critical. We are one of the highest cost States. We have less doctors today than yesterday, the year before and the year before. We have very few. I met with our clinics today. I think it is down to one in Anchorage that accepts new Medicare patients. Now we say we are not going to make sure these reimbursement rates are the right rate. So now we will have more doctors not serving our seniors. It is not only about the unemployed. They are about to throw seniors over the cliff, at least in my State.

Does this bill deal with seniors and making sure the reimbursement rate is the right rate so doctors can perform the services these seniors need?

I know in my state the answer is: They will. This is a significant problem even at the 21-percent rate of reimbursement. So not only do we have the unemployed now, whom the other side seems to have a problem with, yet when it comes to the richest of the rich, they have no problem dealing with them, taking care of them unfunded.

The pharmaceuticals--I know this debate a little bit. I know how the talk I just heard from the Senator from Kentucky sure did go around and around, but the bottom line was the pharmaceutical companies got those monies, made extensive profits, and on the backs of taxpayers. But now it is time to help our seniors, make sure they get basic care, and they are going to be thrown over. It is amazing to me, when I look at this bill--I thought it was simple. Maybe I am naive, being a new Member here, but these are simple things. The crisis in this country is the biggest recession since the Great Depression. Yet when it comes time to giving a little bit of assistance to make sure we can move through this tough time, we are not willing to assist the unemployed. Yet the richest of the rich get taken care of.

I want to ask one question about that so-called bipartisan bill that was mentioned earlier. I know earlier there was discussion, and I hope I can ask this question. The ``bipartisan'' bill that was talked about earlier, I know I flipped through the multiple pages of the index and saw all these extenders for businesses, and, if I remember this right-- correct me if I am wrong--the unemployed had a very short extension but all these businesses got the long extensions for their tax benefits.

Again, it is a question of who do we support here and who do we help? Am I mistaken that so-called bipartisan bill--that really wasn't bipartisan and which had a lot of issues with it--am I correct there was some imbalance there that people were concerned about?

The other piece I want to talk about, and I will end on this because I know the Senator from Oregon has a question or two, and it is one of the things I heard over and over again, and that is why I think the way this is being approached is very simple: Here it is, don't cloud it with a lot of other junk. The public has spoken, and they want transparency. They want it clean, they want it simple, and they want to understand what it is talking about, without this whole business of jamming in things left and right. Here, this is simple: Unemployment for the unemployed, taking care of our seniors.

I am on Alaska time, so this is early for me. I have plenty of time. When it is midnight here, it is 8 o'clock in Alaska, so I have plenty of time here. But when I think about these issues of seniors and the unemployed that the other side doesn't want to help, it seems the next issue--and I will wait my time here and ask about it--is small businesses--the people who are the backbone of this country--trying to help those unemployed become employed. That is another piece of this bill. Is that correct, that small business is another piece?

Small businesses that were probably in the process of pursuing their dreams and hopes in this recession of creating a new opportunity to help those unemployed and others to build our economy. In Alaska, 52 percent of our employment is small business. They are the backbone of this country. They were kind of left out last year. This is an effort to continue to help them. Is that a fair statement?

Madam President, I am seeking to speak on this issue.

Madam President, I rise today to support the Conrad-Gregg amendment. Our economic recovery and our Nation's long-term economic health are at risk. Americans are watching and waiting for Congress and the administration to do the right thing and not accept the status quo.

Deficit and debt will rise to an unprecedented level in the coming decades without major changes in our fiscal policies. As of today, our national debt has reached a staggering $12.3 trillion. It has continued to climb at an average of $3.89 billion per day since the fall of 2007.

I am not complaining. Like you, we are freshmen here. But we were dealt the cards and we have the responsibility to take care of it and handle it. If we do not address this, the Federal debt will go skyrocketing from 53 percent of our gross domestic product at the end of fiscal 2009 to more than 300 percent of GDP in 2050. If we take no action, that will be almost three times the existing record which was set back when the debt had reached 122 percent of GDP at the end of World War II. That would leave the economy vulnerable to significant harm.

Since 2001 we have acted as though debts and deficits did not matter. The national debt has nearly doubled since then because of the way we have paid for things such as wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Bush tax schemes. Congresses of the past dealt with these by not paying for them and that has made the recession worse. We are on track to double it yet again. Our economic future is on the line and we must work together to fight for stability and a solution.

The fiscal situation is wreaking havoc in my own State of Alaska. Alaska's unemployment rate is at a record level of 8.4 percent. Our economic security clearly is at risk. China is our No. 1 creditor and has put us on notice regarding their concerns about American economic decisions. What would happen if China and other foreign nations decided they would no longer engage in financial relationships with the United States? The answer is frightening: higher taxes and interest rates.

To my friends across the aisle, let's put aside partisan politics and do what is right for the American people. Many of you are preparing to vote against raising the debt limit as well as the Conrad-Gregg amendment and others. In fact, six of my Republican friends withdrew their support for this amendment this past Friday, just 24 hours before the Obama administration endorsed it. What does that say to the American people? What does it say to the American families trying to balance their family budgets? It says politics as usual.

I know my own constituents expect me to play by the same rules they do, to be responsible and pay the bills. I remind all of you that increasing the debt limit does not authorize a single cent of new spending. It simply enables

the Government to pay the bills and prevents the truly dire consequence that would cripple us if the nation were ever in a position of being in a default.

You have a unique opportunity to show Americans that you are willing to put aside your political differences for economic security and the future of this country. I call upon my six colleagues to reconsider and join me in doing the right thing.

Americans are frustrated by the political games that are played here in Washington. I stand here before you wondering if some of my friends across the aisle are suffering from amnesia. How is it that so many of my Republican colleagues voted seven times to raise the debt limit when they were in the majority and voted at least that many times for policies and spending that were not paid for, but today they stand prepared to vote against America simply paying the bills? I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Conrad-Gregg amendment or, if that fails, other options that I know will be prepared by Senator Baucus and others. It is critical that we deal with this deficit.

Again, I am not complaining. I got elected. I ran for this office. We were dealt the cards and it is the responsibility of this Congress to step up, pay the bills, and look at the long-term future. As Senator Bennet laid out, speaking about his family, his child doesn't want to pay the bill in the future. We have a responsibility and it is a painful responsibility because the bills have mounted and there has been a lack of that responsibility over the last decade plus. But it is incumbent upon us to reach across the aisle and figure out the right solution for the long term.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I commemorate the launch of the 2010 Decennial Census in Noorvik, AK, and thank the U.S. Census bureau for the honor of kicking off this decade's census. Our State is honored to once again have this privilege. I am proud our country is acknowledging the contributions of all its citizens by beginning this historic count in a small, rural village in Alaska.

Noorvik is a rural community in the Northwest Arctic Borough of Alaska with a population of 642 residents. Because there are no roads linking the community to the rest of the State, it is only accessible by plane or shallow-draft vessel. The majority of the population consists of Inupiaq Eskimo residents primarily working as miners, construction workers, teachers, and public administrators. Noorvik may be a small town, but its residents contribute a great deal to Alaska's infrastructure and industry. Therefore, it is important the decennial count begin in this small yet significant community. The Census will also provide several thousand jobs for Alaskans, who will be travelling to remote areas to collect accurate data from our most remote regions.

The U.S. Census is a valuable and time-honored tradition. Its roots can be traced back to article 1, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, where the founders of our democracy stated, ``The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years.'' When our Nation was founded, the Census was a way to determine the number of each State's delegation in the House of Representatives. Since then, the Census has become more than a mechanism for allotting congressional seats, but also provides policymakers with the data they need to better serve Americans.

I thank the U.S. Census Bureau for launching the 2010 Decennial Census in Noorvik, AK. This is a great opportunity to reach out to rural Alaska and honor our State's rich cultural heritage.

Mr. President, I congratulate a hard-working Alaskan, Mr. Jim Blasingame, on his well-deserved retirement after many years of dedicated service to the Alaska Railroad Corporation, AKRR.

Thirty-five years ago, Mr. Blasingame commenced his employment with the AKRR. Since then, he

has proven to be an exceptional member of the AKRR family. One of his greatest accomplishments was the pivotal role he performed in assisting with the transference of the AKRR from Federal to State ownership. This greatly assisted in the development of the AKRR into an award winning, world class, State-owned corporation. His work has helped the AKRR safely operate and successfully contribute to the economic development of Alaska.

During his time with the AKRR, Mr. Blasingame was a mentor to his fellow railroaders and his leadership abilities resonated through the depots and rail yards. Outside work, Mr. Blasingame is a dedicated member of his community. He volunteers his time on behalf of several nonprofit organizations and in various civic board memberships.

The Alaska Railroad is a truly unique element of Alaska. For many Alaskans, the AKRR signifies a great source of pride. Running from Seward north to Fairbanks, the Alaska Railroad offers some of the most majestic views in America. Without Mr. Blasingame's commitment and enthusiasm towards developing the AKRR, this landmark of Alaskan culture would not be so today.

On behalf of Alaskans, I thank Mr. Blasingame for his many years of dedication and service to Alaska. Mr. President, I congratulate Mr. Blasingame and wish him the best of luck in retirement.

Mr. President, on the occasion of his 80th birthday, January 27, I recognize the life achievements of a resident of Fairbanks, AK, Mr. Barry W. Jackson.

As a young man, Mr. Jackson served in the Marine Corps during World War II and later retired as major. While still working on his law degree from Stanford University in 1957, he travelled to Alaska and obtained a clerkship with a territorial judge.

After being admitted to the Alaska bar in 1959, he was hired as the city attorney for Fairbanks and later opened his own practice, concentrating on estate planning, personal injury, bankruptcy, family and real estate law.

Mr. Jackson also used his legal talents in the Alaska State Legislature. He served in the State house of representatives in the Fourth and Sixth State legislatures from 1965 to 1966 and 1968 to 1970 respectively, where he was a colleague of my late father, then State Senator Nick Begich. He served on the prestigious House Finance Committee and later in a leadership position as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Jackson also served the Alaska Democratic Party as a convention chair and later, was chair of the Interior Democrats. Last October, I was privileged to attend a banquet in Fairbanks where the Interior Democrats honored Mr. Jackson for his many contributions to Alaska.

Perhaps his most significant career accomplishment was his work with Alaska tribes. Much of his legal career has been spent on Alaska Native social and justice causes.

In 1967, he was legal counsel to the State-sponsored Alaska Land Claims Task Force. Among task force's finding was a recommendation that legislation be introduced in Congress that would convey land to Native villages, pay a monetary settlement, form corporations organized by villages and regions and form a statewide corporation. Subsequently, a bill was introduced in 1968 by Alaska Senator Ernest Gruening and Mr. Jackson testified before congressional committee hearings throughout the year.

In the time leading to the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, in 1971, funding for attorneys grew short. Recognizing the monumental importance of the matter, Mr. Jackson took upon himself to work pro bono at great personal hardship to himself and his family. This deed typifies Barry's degree of dedication to a worthy cause.

Many have judged the ideas in the 1968 bill to be the foundation for ANCSA. In the book ``Take My Land, Take My Life'' published in 2001, Mr. Jackson was credited as being the first person who considered the concept of corporations for Alaska Native tribes.

Mr. Jackson is a tireless worker who still engages in his part-time private law practice. I wish Mr. Jackson a happy birthday, thank him for his military and legislative service and applaud him as one of the quiet, selfless contributors to the settlement of Alaska Native land claims.

Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to be here this evening. I thank Senator Cardin for a great presentation on the real facts behind this bill.

You know, being from Alaska, we see a lot of storms. We saw a great blizzard here which brought a lot of snow. I see a lot of blizzards and storms in Alaska. But I have to be honest with you, I have never seen anything like the blizzard of misinformation I have seen in Washington regarding this bill.

Over the course of the next few minutes, I want to talk about the general bill and what it means for all Americans, including Alaskans, and then specifically about the effect on Alaska.

First, I want to walk through a couple of large issues. I know people watching are hearing this over and over while we are on this bill, and the details of it, but I think it is important that we repeat it enough for people to be reminded of the positive impacts the bill will have on America and my State of Alaska. It is not a perfect bill. There are pieces I would like to have improved, and I am sure everyone in this Chamber feels the same. But it is a step in the right direction--a significant step.

On the financial end, in the first 10 years, the bill reduces our deficit by $130 billion. In the next 10 years, with the improvements in the managers' amendment and what it did for the deficit reduction, it is now $1.2 trillion--a significant impact on the national debt.

People call my office and say: How does it reduce the debt? I remind them that between Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, Indian Health Services, and many

other health care programs that we deliver, anything we do to improve the system will mean taxpayers will save money. So, again, $130 billion in the first 10 years, and the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.

The other issue--and again these are broad sweeps--is stronger medical loss ratios. This is important because this starts now, 2010, once this bill is passed, a few months after implementation. Health insurers will be required to spend more of their premiums--which really are your premiums--on clinical services and quality activities, with less going to administration--advertising, profits, excessive pay packages. If they do not adhere to the new limits, they will have to pay rebates to the policyholders. These stricter limits will continue even after the exchange starts in 2011 and apply to all plans, including grandfathered plans. That is a significant benefit to the individual--the person who has to pay the premium.

Accountability for excess rate increases: The health insurer's participation in the exchange will depend on its performance. Insurers that jack up their premiums before the exchange begins will be excluded--a powerful incentive to keep premiums affordable.

There is an immediate ban on preexisting conditions for children under the age of 18. This is in the managers' package. To me, this is unbelievable. Many families struggle, and sometimes the parents will forego their health care in order to make sure their child is as healthy as possible. But when a child has a preexisting condition, just to get coverage for them is sometimes almost impossible. So this makes sure that no insurance company can ban or deny them access to health care with preexisting conditions.

Ensuring the needy have access to care: The use of annual limits on benefits will be tightly restricted, ensuring access to needed care. And those limits will be prohibited completely by 2014. Starting in 2010, new policies will eliminate the lifetime caps.

Also, on the broader scheme, there will be innovation. Medicare will be able to test new models. I can't tell you the number of times I have had a public hearing or a public meeting in Alaska, or I have had phone calls come in from people who have asked me: Can we do something different? How can we improve Medicare? This creates some new incentives to move forward on innovation within our Medicare system.

When you look at the small business end of it, the package improves, including starting the health insurance tax credit in 2010, with almost $40 billion of tax credits. Tax savings to small business will be available.

Transparency: New requirements will ensure that insurers and health care providers report on their performance, allowing patients to make the best possible choice.

The next issue--multistate options. This is something during my campaign I talked a lot about--a program we all have in Congress, and so do almost 4 million Federal employees and their dependents. How do we replicate that to give a benefit to the taxpayers of this country, if they want to access something similar? Well, now we have the multistate option. Health insurance carriers will offer plans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees the health plans of Members of Congress and for Federal employees. At least one plan must be a nonprofit, and the plans will be available nationwide. This will truly promote competition and choice for individuals.

Another new idea, which Senator Wyden had sponsored for many months and talked a lot about, is free choice vouchers, giving more choices to individuals with their money.

As mentioned earlier, the community health centers: It is estimated this bill will now be able to put in place almost 10,000 community health centers throughout this country, providing easy and affordable access for folks.

On the small business end, I want to again just broadly sweep on this. The credits will be available on a sliding scale to small businesses, those small businesses with fewer than 25 employees, and average annual wages of less than $50,000. All small businesses will truly benefit, but if you are a small business with 50 or less employees, you will be exempt. If you want to provide insurance to your employees, and you are in a small group of 25 employees or under, there will be credits available for you.

The bill also clarifies part-time because we have so many part-time employees who work within the seasonal businesses in Alaska--retail, fishing, tourism. It makes sure that small businesses are not hampered by this legislation but enhanced. Again, 96 percent of the small businesses will be exempt from this law, unless they decide to provide health care, and then they can get some benefits through tax credits-- up to $40 billion available.

I am a member of a group of freshmen who came to Washington this cycle. We came with all kinds of ideas on how we wanted to change Washington in short order. We sat down with this bill in mind, and as a group of freshmen, we put together a cost containment package with many ideas--very technical in a lot of ways, but just in the broader sense, it creates administration simplification. It helps ensure we go after health care fraud. With regard to Medicare system upgrades, we make sure that as we develop new systems for Medicare and for the providers, we do some pay-for-performance testing, which will save individuals, save Medicare, and save the Medicare system over time.

The freshmen spent many weeks on the cost containment package we put together, and I want to give credit to Senator Warner for leading the charge, though everyone participated to try to make a difference and bring cost containment to the issue of health care.

I want to go through a quick list on this broader perspective of the legislation and what happens now, because we hear always from the other side that so many things are delayed way out; that they will not happen right away. Let me walk through several items that happen right away.

The Senate bill will make it illegal for insurance companies to drop coverage for Americans who are sick--basically, they call them rescissions--beginning 6 months after the date of enactment. Insurance companies will be barred from limiting the total benefits Americans can use over the course of a year--otherwise known as lifetime caps-- beginning 6 months after the date of enactment. Affordable insurance coverage options will be made available for high-risk pools of Americans who have been uninsured and have been denied coverage because they have preexisting conditions, effective 90 days after enactment.

Early retirees between 55 and 64: I hear from a lot of them who are trying to figure out, as they are now retired and still have some coverage from their former employer, but it is expensive. What this does is set up a new program, and access to a program that will reduce their premiums beginning 90 days after enactment. Insurance companies will be required to start posting their overhead costs on a public Web site so consumers can better compare the deal they are getting effective July 1, 2010.

Insurance companies will have to start providing external review processes beginning 6 months after the date of enactment. Dependents will be able to receive coverage up to the age of 26 on their parents' policy, beginning 6 months after the date of enactment.

This is one again I hear so much when I am back home and from e-mails and letters, people wanting to keep their kids on their policy. Again, coverage up to the age of 26.

The insurance companies will be required to begin covering preventive services and immunization without copays on payments beginning 6 months after the date of enactment. Seniors will have access to dramatic discounts in the purchase of name brand prescription drugs in the Medicare Part D Program beginning July 1.

As I said earlier, children under age 18 cannot be denied for preexisting coverage.

There will be free preventive services for seniors--$500 reduction in the doughnut hole for seniors.

Again, the issue with Medicare, I want to say, when we started this effort to reform health care, Medicare was in trouble and could be in serious trouble by 2017. This legislation adds 10 more years to Medicare.

To be specific to Alaska--and I will be brief on this but I think it is important--many of these issues I laid out

are important to Alaska, but there are quite a few very specific. First, I remind folks what the impact is currently in Alaska--133,000 Alaskans do not currently have insurance; 27,000 residents who now buy expensive individual premiums will now get affordable coverage. We double enrollment in Alaska's Kid Care, what we call here in Washington SCHIP, to more than 15,000 young people, ending the hidden tax on families. About $119 million is spent on uncompensated care, averaging about $1,900 per year. By creating a larger program as we are doing here, we can eliminate that cost.

I have heard over and over about Medicare Advantage. Let me tell you how that works for Alaskans. What we will be doing, we have 60,000 Medicare beneficiaries paying a price for excessive overpayments in higher premiums, even though 99 percent of our Alaskan seniors do not participate in Medicare Advantage.

What you hear when you hear about Medicare Advantage--and those who have it I am sure enjoy it--but in my State we are subsidizing that even though 99 percent of Alaska seniors do not take that program. So we pay an extra approximately $90 to subsidize that program for those extra things they claim they have. The reality is that was supposed to be run by the private sector, saving money to Medicare. It is now costing us more, it is costing my State $90 per Medicare family.

About 10,600 Alaskans hit the doughnut hole in Alaska through the Medicare drug coverage, which can cost some of our seniors up to $4,000 additional a year. They will see a 50-percent reduction.

As I mentioned under early retirees on the national program, 7,300 Alaskans will be affected in a positive way; 8,600 Alaska small businesses could be helped by the small business tax credit. Again, Alaska is benefiting a great deal from this legislation.

Even more specific--and these are items I added specifically in the bill to focus on Alaska's specific issues. I thank Senator Harkin on this next one, which is important. It is providing more primary care providers. It is a loan repayment program. I know he has been an advocate of getting more primary providers within the system-- physicians, nurse practitioners, physicians assistants--from $3,500 to $5,000 for the National Health Service Corps in this country. It serves health professional shortage areas, including 77 in Alaska.

In part, because of this, and due to other major expansion, the Senate HELP Committee has estimated the bill will attract 24,000 new primary care providers. If you want to make a difference to the health care system, this is one critical piece. Again, Senator Harkin, I know, has been an advocate for this for many years. To see us get to this state and be able to move this forward is significant. It will have a positive impact.

Another one which is a program that is a great benefit for hospitals in Soldotna, Juneau, and Sitka, is an amendment which reauthorizes a Medicare project supporting hospitals in rural communities in smaller States, extending that for an additional 5 years, moving it from 10 States to 20 States and creating another 15 hospitals that can participate.

Alaska health care task force--specifically in this legislation, to deal with our Medicare provider issue in Alaska but also our TRICARE, making sure we deliver the right kind of hospital and medical care to our veterans.

More physicians assistants--we inserted specific language to make sure we allow loan repayments for physician assistant teaching faculty, to be also included in loan forgiveness. Last year we had 375 PAs who handled 1.2 million office visits in Alaska.

After 21 years, the Indian Health Service is now in this bill to be reauthorized. For 21 years it has not been reauthorized.

There are many great things in this legislation, from a broader perspective, as I mentioned earlier in my comments, but also very specific to Alaska.

Could it be better? Absolutely. But do we think we have a piece of legislation that is going to make an impact on people's lives? Yes, we do. If we want to keep it the same old business as usual, I guarantee, in 5 years or 10 years from now we will be in this hall, trying to figure out what to do at a bigger crisis.

This is the right decision. It will be an honor for me later this evening to make a vote in the affirmative to move past the cloture vote, getting on to voting for this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Illinois bringing up what I consider a very most important piece of legislation to Alaska. Eleven percent of our population are veterans. We have thousands of military individuals in our State.

I am new to the process. One of the questions I have for the Senator--and I hope he can enlighten me and also enlighten the whole public watching--this is probably one of the most important departments at this time. We are in two wars. Can the Senator give me an explanation? In the past--Senator Durbin started to do it--the Defense bill seemed to be one of those bills where we all came together. It is a bipartisan approach. I know as members of the Armed Services Committee, it seems every time we deal with these issues we are unified.

Help me to understand why this is something that seems to be controversial and yet should be so simple for us to do.

Mr. President, if I may ask one more question. That last statement the Senator from Illinois made, I know as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have not heard complaints about this bill from anyone from the other side. I am asking, from a leadership position, have we heard any complaints on this legislation? Is it just that, it is the moment in time?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, if I could ask a question of the Senator from North Dakota.

I say to the Senator, I appreciate his comments, and I think he is right. Of all the complexity of this bill, this seems so simple. I know when I was mayor, we worked on this issue. It seems logical for Alaska. Since we border so much of Canada, it seems logical to do what we can in this arena.

I know the Senator stated these comments before, but I think it is important for especially my viewers who are now watching from Alaska, with the 4-hour difference. But the Senator talked about the savings. There are savings to the taxpayers that are very clear, and there are savings to the consumer, which is even more significant. Can the Senator remind me what those numbers are? I think I have them. I want to be sure, as I talk about this bill.

That is what this health care bill is about, not only getting good-quality care but also finding those opportunities, as we just heard one Senator talk about, bending that cost curve--I hate that term--but it is impacting the consumers in a positive way by $80 billion.

The other thing I have heard a lot about on the floor--and the Senator talked quickly about it--is the chain of control, which I drove here for 19 days with my family through Canada, and 5 days we bought some drugs when I had a cold, but I am still here. I am standing. I am healthy. Remind me of that chain of control for these drugs and where they are produced.

Yes, I have learned that as a new Member.

The Senator from North Dakota and I have just one last question. Even though we did not ask for a colloquy, this is kind of a colloquy, and I appreciate the back-and-forth.

This is one reason I support this bill--not only today but many months ago--for all the reasons the Senator just laid out. The control is there. The protection to the consumer is there. The savings to the consumer and the taxpayer are enormous, as we deal with these issues. If there is one thing I have heard over and over through e-mails and correspondence to my office, it is: Help us save on prescription drugs.

To emphasize that point once more, to make sure I have the numbers right, over 10 years, between the Federal Government and the consumer, it is over $100 billion.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the Senator from North Dakota for allowing me these questions and again clarifying for my residents in Alaska how important this bill is. Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.