Mark Begich

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I wish to recognize the athleticism of the Alaska members of the 2010 U.S. Winter Olympic team. These six outstanding Alaskans represent not only some of the finest and most skilled athletes in the United States but are also incredible examples of Alaska's grit and determination. Alaska is very proud to have these six outstanding athletes competing in this year's Winter Olympics. Callan Chythlook Sifsof of Girdwood, AK, competed in the snowboard cross competition. Callan is the first Alaska Native to make the U.S. Winter Olympic team. She grew up in a part of Alaska known as ``the Bush'' and spent her first years in a village along the Bering Sea. Before moving to Girdwood, Callan never imagined herself as an Olympian. She holds the double title of 2007 U.S. national champion and junior national champion in boardercross. Jeremy Teela's home town is Anchorage, AK. He finished ninth in the 10-kilometer biathlon sprint during the 2010 Winter Olympics, the best American result to date in biathlon. A member of the 2002, 2006, and 2010 U.S. Olympic teams, Teela's career has spanned more than a decade of impressive finishes. He has been a member of the U.S. national team since 1996. Jay Hakkinen, of Kasilof, AK, is a three-time Olympian, and his 10th place finish in the Olympic 20-kilometer individual biathlon competition in 2006 solidified his reputation as one of the top biathletes in the United States. Jay's career began when he spent his junior year of high school in Norway as a foreign exchange student. There he found a biathlon club; it was then he decided to focus on biathlon and began pursuing the sport. Kikkan Randall, from Anchorage, AK, made her Olympic debut in the 2002 Winter Olympics. At the 2006 Winter Olympics, Kikkan finished ninth in the Olympic sprint, the best Olympic result in cross-country skiing by an American woman. She topped that in 2010, finishing eighth in individual sprint classic. Kikkan helped her team finish in sixth place in the 2010 Winter Olympics women's team sprint freestyle race. James Southam is from Anchorage, AK. He started racing in high school, and, after training for 10 years, he won his first ski race at age 25. Since then, James has been one of the top distance racers in the country, representing the United States in the 2006 Olympic winter games and the past three world championships. In the 2010 Olympic winter games he placed 34th in the men's 30-kilometer pursuit. Holly Brooks moved to Alaska in 2004. Upon her arrival, she started her second coaching job as the head ski coach for West Anchorage High School and worked part time at a ski shop and for a local consulting firm. In 2006, she was offered a full-time ski coaching position at Alaska Pacific University Nordic Ski Center. In 2010, Holly competed in the 10-kilometer freestyle and 15-kilometer pursuit at the Olympics. Kerry Weiland is originally from Palmer, AK. Kerry started playing hockey at age 5 and later excelled on the Palmer High School boys' hockey team and continued on at the University of Wisconsin, where she was a two-time All-American. Kerry scored a key goal in the game against Sweden, which moved the United States onto the gold medal round. She is now a proud member of the 2010 U.S. Winter Olympic silver medal hockey team. Madam President and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the efforts of Alaska's finest winter athletes. We thank them for their dedication, hard work, and representation of the United States and Alaska at the 2010 Winter Olympics.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. I thank the Senator. Thank you again for your leadership, and especially as the freshmen group worked on the cost containment piece of this legislation. That was an important part we will see for many years to come. Over the next few days we are focusing on making a good bill a little bit better. Yesterday, the President signed the landmark legislation moving health care reform into law. So over the next few days, again, we are going to work on making that bill a little bit better. You are going to see clearly the differences. You are going to see our side of the equation has worked hard on this legislation. Those who voted for health care reform are on the side of American families, not on the side of the insurance industry. We are on the side of seniors who will see lower prescription drug costs--because reform is going to work in that direction--not on the side of big drug companies. We are on the side of American small business--not business as usual. I was truly proud to vote for and help pass that legislation last December. But as mentioned already this morning, there are many benefits that occur right now, this year. This year, for example, there is help for small businesses. As you just heard, immediately, firms with fewer than 10 workers get a tax credit worth 35 percent of what they will spend now on health insurance. It will eventually ramp up to a 50-percent tax credit, and firms with up to 25 workers will get a partial credit. For small businesses--truly the backbone of the Alaska business community and this country's business community--that is an immediate benefit. Coverage for preexisting conditions: Within 3 months, people with preexisting conditions and no insurance will get help. A $5 billion fund is being set up to provide them with affordable coverage. Coverage for dependent children: Within 6 months, parents will be able to extend their policies to cover their dependent children up to the age of 26. Some of these points you have already heard, as I said, this morning, but it is important to repeat them because I think in the noise over the last year and a half a lot of it got lost. Another--a very important one--free preventive care: Within 6 months, all insurance plans must provide free checkups. This includes seniors on Medicare. And there is much, much more when you look at this legislation. For my own State, the bill addresses many specific concerns I have heard in Alaska. It includes several of my amendments, including a panel to improve Federal health care in Alaska, increased loan forgiveness for thousands of new primary care providers, and added funding for community hospitals. We also, as a team of freshmen, wrote a cost containment amendment that cuts prices for consumers, increases value and innovation in the health care system and, as mentioned earlier--let's not forget--it is a deficit reducer: in the first 10 years, $143 billion, and in the next 10 years, $1.3 trillion in deficit reduction. This bill is paid for--paid for. These are many of the improvements. Again, these improvements will save lives; add 32 million people, those uninsured--making sure they have coverage--save seniors on prescription drug costs by closing the doughnut hole; save families, by providing tax relief to help them afford health care; and crack down on waste and fraud. It has been an enormous time in this last year and a half working on this. But I also want to say, the next 3 days will also be tedious and confusing to the public because what you will see on the other side is every imaginable amendment we would love to see--many of them we probably would love to vote for. I am not voting for any of them because the whole tactic is to delay the delivery, to ensure that people who want a family doctor will not get one, to protect the insurance companies instead of what we are trying to do to make sure people get a fair shake from their companies. So you are going to see that over the next 3 days. I think what is important for us is to remind Americans--Alaskans in my State--why this bill is important. It helps small business, families, seniors. It does it now. It is important. It is important for us to get it done. But do not be fooled by the next 3 days on what goes on this floor. We have passed health care reform. All we are doing now is making a good bill better. I thank the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. 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. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. 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. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Senator Begich pertaining to the introduction of S. 3150 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. 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.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. 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. BEGICH

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

Mr. BEGICH

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

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. On a national basis.

Mr. BEGICH. 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?

Mr. BEGICH. In your State, it is 11 percent?

Mr. BEGICH. 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.

Mr. BEGICH. 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?

Mr. BEGICH. 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?

Mr. BEGICH. 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?

Mr. BEGICH. 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?

Mr. BEGICH. 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?

Mr. BEGICH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BEGICH. 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.

Mr. BEGICH. 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?

Mr. BEGICH. They have given up. They have lost faith.

Mr. BEGICH

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

Mr. BEGICH. 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. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. 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.