Mark Begich

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Honor Flight Network and the four Alaskan World War II veterans who are participating in this year's flight: Robert J. Ingram, a veteran of the Navy from Fairbanks; and Louis E. Fessler, a veteran of the Army, Marc Stella, a veteran of the Marine Corps, and Joseph William Nugent, a veteran of the Army Air Corps, all from Anchorage. The Honor Flight Network is a national program that provides free transportation to aging and ailing veterans to travel to Washington, DC, to visit and reflect at the memorials associated with the war in which they served. Later this month, these four heroes are scheduled to go to military- and veteran-related museums and tour the Capitol. The highlight of this trip of a lifetime is a long anticipated visit to the World War II Memorial on the Mall. These veterans of the war to end all wars deserve our highest praise for their service. Like so many men of that great generation, they selflessly did their duty and are among the fortunate ones who were able to return to the civilian community and lead long and productive lives. Mr. Ingram, Mr. Fessler, Mr. Stella, and Mr. Nugent have our undying thanks and gratitude. Thanks are also in order to the Honor Flight Network for conceiving this program, to the flight guardians Julie Engfer and Heidi Matson from Fairbanks, and Val Stella from Anchorage, and to Alaska Airlines for donating airline tickets to all of the travelers. I urge all Alaskans and Americans to reflect on the service of Bob, Louie, Marc, and Bill and our other remaining World War II vets and all veterans who have made sacrifices for our Nation throughout its history.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the passing of one of Alaska's most endeared philanthropists, Mary Louise Rasmuson. Mrs. Rasmuson died on July 30, 2012, at her home in Anchorage, AK. Mary Louise Rasmuson was a beloved Alaska pioneer who saw opportunity in every challenge. She was generous in spirit and deed, and through her family foundation made Alaska a much stronger and vibrant state. Intelligent. Diplomatic. Principled and ethical. Gentle but firm. Mrs. Rasmuson spent her life breaking barriers, challenging conventions, and seeking to improve opportunities for those around her. She was a trailblazer for women and left her mark across the country and the State of Alaska through her leadership, philanthropy, and the family foundation that she helped lead with her late husband Elmer. Selected from the initial pool of 30,000 applicants for the new Women's Army Corp-WAC she rose quickly through the ranks and in 1957 became the fifth commandant of the WAC, a position she occupied for 6 years, first appointed by President Eisenhower and reappointed by President Kennedy. Mary Louise led the way for women in the military. Mrs. Rasmuson's oral history of the WAC unit, World War II and the Korean War is among those recorded by The Library of Congress for The Veterans History Project. In 1942, as the United States entered World War II, Mrs. Rasmuson left her job as an assistant principal in a school district near Pittsburgh and became a member of the first class of the new WAC. As director of the WAC unit, military historians credit her with major achievements including increasing the WAC's strength, insisting on effectiveness in command, working with Congress to amend laws that deprived women of service credit and benefits, and expanding the range of military opportunities open to women. Mrs. Rasmuson retired in 1962 after 20 years of military service, during which she received a Legion of Merit award with two oak leaf clusters for her work integrating Black women into the WAC. She was also awarded the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps Service Medal, the American Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal, Occupation Medal and National Defense Medal. At an event honoring her, former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry said, ``When you hear about women seizing new opportunities to serve, remember that they march behind Colonel Rasmuson.'' Mary Louise's impact can be felt virtually everywhere in Alaska, whether improving the position of families, founding a world-class museum, enhancing research in healthcare, and advancing understanding of Alaska Native cultures on a national stage. Her contributions have reached every corner of Alaska, from Ketchikan to Gambell. Mrs. Rasmuson arrived in Alaska in 1962 after her marriage to Elmer E. Rasmuson, chairman of National Bank of Alaska. Together, they made a formidable team influential in the public and civic agenda in a rapidly developing city and State. She quickly adapted to life in Alaska and became active in several community groups. One of her most visible impacts on Alaska came from her service as head of the Municipality of Anchorage Historical and Fine Arts Commission and later as chair of the Anchorage Museum Foundation. Her vision, passion and personal effort led to the creation of the Anchorage Museum of Art and History in 1968. As Mayor of Anchorage, I was proud to be with Mrs. Rasmuson to cut the ribbon on the latest expansion of the museum, now named the Anchorage Museum at Rasmuson Center, a culminating moment in her decades-long vision to build a great museum for all Alaskans. In 1967, Mrs. Rasmuson began what would become 45 years of service on the board of Rasmuson Foundation. She maintained an active voice in the affairs of the Foundation and regularly attended board meetings until her late 90s, when she transitioned to an emeritus position. Even in the last years of her life, Mrs. Rasmuson received briefings from Foundation staff on projects seeking Foundation support. Facilities that bear her name include the Elmer and Mary Louise Rasmuson Theater at the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, DC, the Elmer and Mary Louise Rasmuson Center for Rheumatic Disease at the Benaroya Research Institute of Virginia Mason Hospital in Seattle, WA, and the Mary Louise Rasmuson Pavilion at the Boy Scouts of America Camp Gorsuch in Chugiak, AK. Mary Louise Rasmuson will be missed by all who knew her, but her legacy will live forever in the hearts and minds of Alaskans.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I am going to deviate for a moment from my prepared comments. I listened to my good friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch. I respect him greatly. As perhaps the only person who actually runs a small business, I wish to comment on a few things and comment on this important piece of legislation we have in front of us. Small business is defined not by the SBA, which is 500 and below. When I talk to small businesspeople, they wish they had 500 employees. It would be a dream, but it is not a fact. We have to be careful about the numbers, and there are a lot of numbers being thrown around. There was the story about the gentleman from Florida who sold his business and paid more taxes. I will be corrected if necessary, but when someone sells their small business, they pay capital gains tax, which is about 15 percent. So when they make more money when they sell their business--I have sold several of my small businesses over the years, and if someone doesn't reinvest, they pay a certain rate, and when they reinvest, they can bypass it through an exchange afforded through the Tax Code. My friend from Utah sits on the Finance Committee. I am guessing the small businessperson had a pretty good rate, 15 points, which isn't bad. Let me also make sure and be very clear, again, there are a lot of numbers thrown around. The bills are very simple. They both cost money. One costs $930 billion over the next 10 years and one costs $250 billion. The proposal my friend from Utah suggested costs $930 billion over 10 years. That is how the Congressional Budget Office scores these things. We can argue if we agree or disagree. It is amazing on days they like the numbers they agree, on days they don't like the numbers they disagree. The Congressional Budget Office is the Congressional Budget Office. I don't like the group. I like the people. I think they have a black magic box there and come up with numbers. The fact is, those are the numbers. That is the bipartisan organization that is selected by this body jointly to determine these numbers. We can argue over them after the fact. For example, when this extension that my friend talks about over there that in just 1 more year--how many times have we heard that? I have heard it twice since I have been here. It was a 10-year deal when it was first passed that would bring this relief and this growth and this economy beyond our belief. In the last 3\1/2\ years, I don't know, the economy crashed. It is recovering now and struggling. When I came here, they said: We need to extend it for just 2 years to help the economy. So we extended it. I voted to extend them all for 2 years. I am not doing that again. We can't afford it. For 2 years, we had this extension that was supposed to boom the economy. We have had a slow-growth economy. The people growing this economy are the small businesspeople. These are the people who have 25 or less employees. They are the real small businesspeople. As a matter of fact, this bill--and I heard the number. Again, I ask people to listen to the numbers and the twisted commentary that everybody gives on both sides. In Alaska, we say it how it is. Here are the facts, and we saw them in the documents, whatever may be presented to us. Ninety-seven percent of the small businesses in this country will not see a tax increase because they are real small businesspeople. When we walk out of this building and we go down the street for lunch and see the restaurateurs that are operating, there are not 500 employees. There are 10 or 15 employees. I talked to the owner at the Alaska Growth Company today. He has 15 employees. The largest SBA lender, bigger than Wells Fargo, bigger than Key Bank, bigger than all of them, has 15 employees. That is a small business. Those are the people we are talking about. I respect my friend. He has been a lawyer all his life. I am not a lawyer. No disrespect to lawyers. I am a small businessperson. That is where I made my living, that is where I make my living, and that is where our family makes our living. Let's make sure it is clear what we are talking about. When the Senator talked about--I can't remember the exact percentage--but 54 percent of these dollars are passed through. He talked about dollars. Yes, because the 3 percent or the employers who have over 25 or 50 employees have huge revenue streams. The small businesspeople in this economy, 97 percent of them make less than $250,000 net income. That is what we are talking about. I think every small business would love to have net income over $250,000. They strive for it every day. I know I do in my small business. I hope every day we achieve these numbers. As the public listens carefully to the debate and as the minority leader said earlier today, there is a difference, a clear difference. We cannot afford their bill. The taxpayers cannot afford their bill. It is $930 billion over the next 10 years, plus interest costs. I heard over and over from the other side, 40 percent of what we borrow is--we have to borrow to pay our bills. Forty percent of everything we pay, we have to borrow. Where are they getting the $930 billion? Where is that coming from? It costs money, it costs interest, and we don't have it because over the last decade and a half Democrats and Republicans spent like there was no tomorrow. Tomorrow is here. We have to determine what our priorities are. Despite the fear tactics being laid out, I support small businesses 100 percent. Many bills I presented and supported over the last 3\1/2\ years were about protecting and growing our small business. Define a real small business. There are people who have to take their credit cards and figure out how to get capital because banks will not give them the money. They have a dream of an opportunity and people look at them and say: How much money do you have in the bank? You can mortgage your two homes or one home or you can put everything up that you have as collateral, plus maybe your first born. I have been through this. My wife started her small business with a small investment out of her retirement funds, her own funds, and a small $30,000 SBA loan. Just as a side note, I get so frustrated when I hear these ads, everyone is going to exaggerate what they hear and see. I am sure, whatever I say today, in 2 years they will take a couple words and use them against me. I expect that. They will say whatever they want. That is what opponents do in campaigns. It is too bad we can't talk about the issues. I am not here to defend the President. The President gets to defend himself. That is what he does. I have disagreed with the President more than once. I have disagreed with my national party more than once. His point is when we build a business, there are other elements that help build it. For my wife's business, it was an SBA loan. I had a vending business. When I had those trucks on the street, those roads were built by a collective group of taxpayers who helped to build those roads. It is a combination of those things. Don't get me wrong. It is the blood, sweat, and tears of small businesses and the people who come up with the dreams and ideas that create these businesses and push it forward. So I sat here patiently. As I was presiding, I listened. The numbers are simple. One costs more, one costs less. The taxpayers can't afford it. As I said, 2 years ago, I supported the extension because I was told we were going to invest. We were going to grow this economy significantly. We have grown it on the backs of small businesspeople. That is on whom we have grown this economy. That is where the fastest growing population of new employees are coming from. To my friend on the other side of the aisle, we gave that idea a shot. It didn't perform. I have to say as to Thelma and Louise--a scene I hear about all the time--thank God they were driving an American car. My bet is they landed safely on the other side wherever they went. But the fact is, it was in this body--and I heard the same arguments on the other side: We can't help our auto industry; we can't help them out of what they are struggling with--we took a calculated risk to support those businesses that manufacture and employ people and today they are thriving because this body said we are going to take a risk. Again, Thelma and Louise, thank you for driving an American car. This is simple. It is about making sure 98 percent of Americans today continue to have tax relief. It is about 97 percent of the businesses continuing to have tax relief--small businesses. It is important that we do this not only for the economy but for these families who are struggling. There are 300,000 families in Alaska alone who will benefit from this relief. There is a comment that I think Senator Lieberman said earlier, and I recognize his point. His point is we should have real tax reform. I agree and that is why I sponsored a bill with Senator Wyden and Senator Coats on real tax reform. We are moving down the path, but we have to keep doing some things here. We have to do some things that keep the economy moving forward in the right direction. A typical family of four in Alaska, if not without this relief, will pay another $2,200 a year in taxes. A married couple making $80,000 with one teenager at home and another in college will see their taxes go up by $2,250. A couple earning $130,000 with one child will see their taxes go up $4,000. I could go on and on. We have choices to make, and they are not going to be fun. Those days are gone. They did that in the last decade and a half when they had all kinds of money to spend. We are in a different situation. We have to make choices of whom we invest in to grow this economy. I will invest in the small business community, the 97 percent that will continue to receive tax relief under this bill and the 98 percent of Middle America who are working every day to try to make ends meet. These are the folks I am focused on. I recognize my colleagues on the other side want to again see massive tax reform. We have not had it since the early 1980s. I have not been here since then. I know a lot of these guys have been here a long time and sit on the Finance Committee and other committees. Do it. I am all game for amendments on the floor. I am all game for that. We did it on the farm bill. I believe we had 80 amendments. We had a ton of amendments on the Transportation bill. It doesn't bother me one darn bit. Vote on whatever we need to and move on. Let's move this economy forward and keep moving forward on the legislation that is critical. Let me end on one point. I respect my colleagues on the other side. We agree many times and sometimes we disagree. Today we disagree on this issue. We don't have the money. We have to limit where we can put our resources and target them in the best way we can. As I said, I voted a couple years ago for this extension on everything and more layoffs occurred in these big companies and certain things happened that didn't show the economy growth. One thing did happen. Small businesses did grow. For the first time in 5 years, home prices reported last week are up. New home starts are up for the first time in many months. Why are those up? Because the small business community and Middle America are starting to put money into those areas. That is important because that will grow this economy and grow it beyond our belief over the next decade, plus. But for us to say we can still have the train moving at the speed we were moving at before the crash, we can't do it. We can't extend these tax rates for everyone. They want us to give a little, so we are asking the top 2 percent to give a little bit. At the end of the year, my guess is we are not going to extend the payroll tax. We can't afford it, so that means people on the other end will have to give a little bit. As my friend Senator Lieberman said, everyone needs to give a little bit. Yes, we are going to do that. From my end, I see the give and take and tough decisions that are necessary. That is what we were elected for, and that is why we are here. To keep business as usual and say: Just for 1 more year, we will do tax reform someday, well, that day is here. There is no tomorrow, and we have to make tough calls. So why not give the relief to the real 97 percent of small businesses? Again, I have to clarify. I have a sub S. I have an LLC. I understand this. One comment my friend said was even if the owner didn't take a dime--I have a small business where I didn't take a dime. My LLC made money. I paid not corporate, but I paid a passthrough through me because I get a sub S, which is a combination of corporations. The point is everyone needs to give a little to make it happen and make it work. Today we are asking one group to give a little but making sure the bulk of our economy continues to move forward. We want to make sure the 300,000 Alaskans whom I see on a regular basis still get the relief; for the small businesses that are creating jobs and creating a dream where they have to put a max on their charge cards to build the businesses because they can't get capital from the banks, or spending time cashing out their retirement because they believe in their dreams, that this might be their opportunity, these are the people I want to support. So, again, I appreciate the time. I wish we had more than what happens when we come down, we speak, we leave; we come down, we speak, we leave. There is no real give-and-take. I wish my friend from Utah was still here. We could have a great conversation about the data he used. But here is one simple point: One costs about $1 trillion, one costs about $150 billion. We can afford the lower cost option which protects 98 percent of the people in this country, giving them relief, and 97 percent of our small businesses. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 25, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``The International Space Station: a Platform for Research, Collaboration, and Discovery.''

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 25, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Short-Supply Prescription Drugs: Shining a Light on the Gray Market.''

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 25, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 25, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 25, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Education Tax Incentives and Tax Reform.''

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 25, 2012, at 3 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Economic Statecraft: Increasing American Jobs Through Greater U.S.- Africa Trade and Investment (S. 2215, The Increasing American Jobs Through Greater Exports to Africa Act of 2012).''

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 25, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ensuring Judicial Independence Through Civics Education.''

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 25, 2012, at 2 p.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Enhancing Women's Retirement Security.''

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 25, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Assessing Grants Management Practices at Federal Agencies.''

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, this is a very interesting night on the Senate floor as many of us keep coming down and talking about what it means, the money involved in politics, and the corrupt system that is now plaguing us with these super PACs and these 501(c)4s. I bet if we asked the average person what is a 501(c)4, they would have no idea. We would say, turn on the TV in one of those swing States and see 1 of those 1,000 ads in a week; that is a 501(c)4 running those ads. I know it is late here. It is not too late from Alaska's perspective; it is late here. It is around 11 o'clock in Washington, DC. In Alaska it is about 7 o'clock, the sun hasn't set, and here we are in the Senate talking about what is important not only to my folks in Alaska but also to the rest of the folks in this country. It is just July and we are already up to our elbows in negative and dirty and distorted attack ads. Imagine what it will be like by November. These kinds of negative ads are cheap-shot ads, many of them funded by anonymous donors who make outrageous negative claims based on half truths at best and outright lies at worst, all paid for by secret fat cats and unlimited deep pockets--money that no one knows where it comes from. Alaskans tell me when I am back there--and I try to get back there at least twice a month or more and I hear from Alaskans all the time. They are fed up with it. I know we are fed up with it. I think the American people are fed up with it. So I am happy to join my colleagues tonight to stand up and fight back, demanding transparency-- something so simple. That is all we are asking for tonight: transparency, openness, and honesty. I don't know what they are afraid of. If you contribute money, you should be proud and excited about who you are supporting. For some reason they hide. They don't want people to see who they support. I want to take a few minutes--I know many people have heard tonight, who have been watching and listening, and maybe it has been through C- SPAN or through news clips or whatever else might be going on, through our own Web sites--to describe how we got here, why we are in this dilemma. The Citizens United case expanded free speech rights to corporations as if they are free people. Whoever thought ``corporate personhood'' would become part of our vocabulary? In fact, Alaskans are very concerned about this. Just last week, the city and borough of Sitka passed a resolution about the opposition to corporate personhood. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this resolution from a small community in Alaska that is concerned about the issue.

Mr. BEGICH. I also want to talk about the solution to a growing problem, and that is the DISCLOSE Act. As I presided, sitting where the Presiding Officer is now, and now down on the floor, I noticed no one from the minority is here in this Chamber countering or debating what we are talking about tonight. They are at home away from the TV cameras because earlier this evening they voted in a bloc against moving the DISCLOSE Act forward. That is kind of interesting because I don't know how many times I hear from the other side: Please let us have the right to have a debate on a subject matter. Don't filibuster it; don't require 60 votes. Let us vote. Let us amend these kinds of issues. So all we are saying is, Let's get to the vote. They would get a chance to amend it if they want, if they don't like pieces of it, but they won't let us do that. They voted in favor of unlimited negative political ads. They voted against transparency, openness, and honesty. They voted against the American people. They should be ashamed. They should be in hiding. So what exactly is Citizens United? The Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court--again, that many of us have spoken about already--2 years ago opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate and special interest money in elections. As a result, corporations and other wealthy interests exert vast influence in our political system through secret, anonymous, untraceable money. Individuals, ordinary Americans, are having their voices drowned out. Super PACs--we hear that phrase often--disclose their donors, but these 501(c)4s--that is what they are called, 501(c)4 groups, which is a code underneath the IRS code--they are actually called--this is what is amazing--social welfare organizations, 501(c)4s. They don't have to disclose anything. They can run their own negative ads or they can give unlimited money to super PACs without any disclosure. Either way, they don't have to disclose their donors. The era of secret money is here, and it is a lot of money. We have heard the numbers. This year, we estimate almost $1 billion will be spent in negative ads no one has to know who is paying for. If they love these ads, if they think they are so great and they are so factual, all we are asking is to tell us who you are, tell us what you are doing. When I was mayor of Anchorage, I had to deal with a group like this in one of my reelection campaigns. They ran an ad. No one knew who they were, but I had a pretty good idea. I started talking about it. I will tell my colleagues what happened. In Anchorage, people rejected those ads. I won my reelection. I won the largest margin in my city's history. But they started running these secret ads. They didn't want to disclose themselves. They didn't like a decision I made and then they never came forward, but we knew who they were. Again, we think it will be up to $1 billion. They have already spent a quarter of a billion dollars. The last time we had an issue such as this in this country around electioneering in the sense of elections being bought by very special interest groups was around 1972. Some people may not remember the history, but all I have to say is a couple of words: Scandal. Watergate. That is what happened. It was election money--more money than people could ever imagine. The rules were unlimited in 1972. As a matter of fact, it got so bad that it was truly a constitutional crisis. The President had to resign. Think about it. That was the last time we did election reform in the sense of campaign financing. And campaign financing reform came in fast and furious after that, because it was corruption with the money of a very few people. It brought down our President at that time and almost brought down this country. Things have changed quite a bit since then. I want to give a couple of stats because I think it is important to know where we have been and where we are in the sense of this debate. Forty years ago was the last time we had meaningful, aggressive election reform in the sense of campaign financing. Back then we could buy a gallon of gas for 55 cents. Imagine that. HBO was launched as the first paid-for cable network channel, or TV station. Today, cable is everywhere and the amount of money flowing into it is enormous. Digital watches were introduced. Everything is digital now. Back then it was just beginning, but it was a different era. It was a crisis that occurred with the corruption of money that tried to buy our governments, buy every elected official they could get their hands on, and in that case the Presidency. That was 40 years ago. Now here we are. When we think about the money that will be spent this time--$1 billion--almost 70 percent of the money so far has been used for negative ads. Poll after poll, I don't care if it is a scientific poll or sitting at the coffee shop, or when I am traveling around Alaska--people hate negative ads. But they continue to buy them and they never want to tell anyone who is paying for them. Again, if they are so proud and they are factual, step to the plate. The election is 4 months away from now and we are going to see an enormous amount of ads. When I think about how this affects my State of Alaska--not so long ago, Alaska had some of the strictest campaign finance laws in the country. Alaskans said we don't want outside money or a few rich locals buying elections. Let me give an example. Five hundred dollars is the maximum amount one can contribute to a candidate in a calendar year. Individuals, nonresidents, the maximum amount for a Governor's race is $20,000, total. Corporations, business organizations, unions in Alaska, prohibited. Groups from outside, not based in Alaska, prohibited. Nongroup entities based outside of Alaska, prohibited. We have some of the toughest laws. But now this effort is stepping on what citizens did through an initiative. They put at risk our State laws. Now corporations can make independent expenditures on behalf of State candidates in Alaska, which they could not do before. Our own campaign financing agency in Alaska just issued an opinion that will allow for unlimited spending. This will allow outside groups and money to influence Alaskans in Alaska elections--exactly what we didn't want, through our own citizens initiative. There is one thing we don't like in Alaska and that is outsiders telling us how to do our business. They did that for decades and took everything they could out of Alaska. Every dime, every inch of land they could take in the sense of ownership of mineral resources, they took it all for their benefit--for a few. Alaskans said, No more. Not only did we change our laws that govern, we also changed our elections law. Citizens did this. What can we do in Congress? It is so simple: disclosure and transparency. Members of both parties have said for decades that sunlight, as we heard tonight, is the best disinfectant. We need more transparency. I am a huge advocate for transparency. I post my own schedule. I post my financial statements. I disclose my wife's income, which is not required. I called for crop insurance transparency. I cosponsored the STOCK Act. People just want to know what we are up to. And these corruptive systems of a few, a dozen or so, who are trying to buy this election for their own personal gain--we just want to know who they are. They can spend the money they want, but we want to know who they are. Transparency, disclosure, used to be a bipartisan idea. Senator McConnell said himself many times--we heard this earlier; I want to repeat it because sometimes what happens around this place, I have noticed after only 4 years here, is memories get very vague of what people said before and suddenly they change their ideas based on the politics, not the policy--here is his direct quote from 15 years ago: I think disclosure is the best disinfectant. I think it gives our constituents an opportunity to decide whether or not we're in the clutches of some particular interest group and whether or not that's a voting issue for them. I'm certainly in favor of enhanced disclosure. That is from the minority leader. Nearly every Senator in this body, on both sides of this aisle, has said they want more transparency. Polls show Americans want to know exactly who spends money to influence elections--they want to know it--because they want to have more faith in their representatives. Maybe this explains why they are angry at us, why Congress has such a low rating. The bill is very simple. I know people have said it over and over again, but sometimes I think we have to repeat it. The bill is very simple. It requires any organization that spends $10,000 or more on influencing politics to file a simple--simple--disclosure report with the FEC, the Federal Elections Commission. It is not complicated. Every group is treated the same. I have received a few e-mails. I have to say, the e-mails on this issue: all for it, except for only one against, so far. I know once I have said this, tomorrow I will see a ream of them because five or six of these special interest groups will be churning out stamped-out letters. But this treats everyone the same: corporations, nonprofits, labor unions, 501(c)(4)s, 527 organizations. They only have to disclose money spent on elections, and only from individuals giving more than $10,000. Under this bill, money given to these groups for other purposes does not need to be disclosed, despite what you read in the papers and the blogs--the misinformation that is put out there or by the undisclosed groups that tell you the misinformation, that will not tell you who they are but want to give you more misinformation. This is a new and improved version of the DISCLOSE Act that failed on the Senate floor 2 years ago by just one vote. Under that bill, the cutoff for disclosure was $600. Now, in this bill before us tonight, the threshold is $10,000. That is not too much to ask. If you give $10,000 or more for negative political attack ads that distort the truth, the American people deserve to know who you are. And if you are so proud of those ads, you should disclose who you are. The bill will not force groups to release their member lists. Some people have e-mailed me. I want to make it very clear, if you belong to the NRA--and I belong to the NRA. I am a lifetime member. Actually, I do not have any problem with the NRA releasing my name. If they want to put it on their Web site that I am a lifetime member, go for it, I am all for it. I am proud to be a member. Put my name up there. But this does not require us--if you are a dues-paying member to a group such as the NRA, your name will not be listed. So that misinformation from some groups out there, shame on them. This bill is not an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The DISCLOSE Act puts no restrictions on speech and is fully consistent with the Supreme Court decision. The bill also incorporates the Court's ``effective disclosure'' rules. Let me sum it up. This bill--and I think the Senator from Arkansas spoke to this, and I thought it was great because we always hear that these bills are so big, they are pages--this is it. If you look at it, it is double-spaced. It takes only half the page, each one. It is not complicated, pretty simple. The bill is narrowly tailored and very simple. It does not prevent any special interest group or any corporation from donating any amount they want. All we are asking is, tell us who you are. When I say ``us,'' not us here--the American people, who want to know. The bill will give Americans faith that their elected representatives are not being bought and sold by hundreds of millions of dollars of secret untraceable money. So I hope we vote on the DISCLOSE Act again, and as soon as tomorrow. And I hope my colleagues from the other side come back to this. Maybe they will have something to say. I do not know. It has been a long night. We have not heard a word from them. It would be nice to have a debate on this. But also let's do what I know Alaskans are asking me every day: Clean up the system. The best way you can do that is to tell people where the money is. Show me the money. Follow the money. And when you follow the money, as in 1972 they did, you know exactly who is trying to buy the government. In this case, we just want to know. If you are so proud of these ads you run--and I am sure we all sat around a little bit talking about this. As soon as we come to the floor and say these things, people will be--I am sure 2 years from now when I am up, they will be thinking: I am going to run those ads against that Begich guy. My view is, hey, if you want to run them, run them. People want to know who you are. But if you will not disclose, then you pay the consequence of what I think Alaskans will feel; that is, these people who hide behind this money, secret money, do not disclose themselves, basically what they are pitching, what they are selling is hogwash. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, first, before I make my comments--I want to talk about the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act--I want to say to my friend from West Virginia, I know they are struggling under incredible issues--even before the storm that occurred. I know he has efforts he is doing to build infrastructure, and his statements are right on the mark. In western Alaska, 40 percent of the communities do not even have water infrastructure. It is not a question of rebuilding it; they do not have it. So I recognize the Senator and his great work for West Virginia, making it a better place. His points are well thought out and right to the mark about what we need to do to rebuild this country. A good part of all that is it is about American jobs, American workers building those water and sewer lines and putting those transmission lines back up--whether they be above or below the ground. So, again, I commend the Senator for his work in West Virginia. Madam President, I have come down to talk about the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act. I come from the small business world. I know people come down to the Senate floor on the other side of the aisle and talk about being from the small business world. I always like to look and see what that really means. It is always amazing to me. When someone is from the small business world, here is what it is really about: It is not about working for some corporation, having a nice title, not really worrying about making it from day to day or worrying about a payroll. At the end of the day, if the business is not good, they do not get a check. That is how it works in the small business world. So when I hear people come down and talk about small business, it surprises me, to be very frank, the lack of understanding, the lack of knowledge they have about the small business world. I have been in it from the age of 14. My wife has grown a business from serving and selling smoked salmon on the street corner to now, having a couple retail stores and doing very well. But she has struggled just like everyone else. She has had to deal with the bureaucracy. She has had to figure out how to raise the capital, put retirement money on the table, maximize her credit cards--do everything possible to take her dream and make it a reality, just as I have done for all my years in the small business world. So I come here not just as a Senator from Alaska, representing Alaskans and small businesses, but also as someone who has lived it, worked it, and understands it. We have a chance--and I appreciate the 80-to-14 vote to let us proceed to this bill, which is the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act. This is an important bill. It has two components that seem simple in a lot of ways but have great impact. First, I want to mention the idea that you can get a tax credit for hiring people. Some say, well, small businesses will not use a tax rate just to hire people. I, maybe, agree to a certain extent on that, but why is this important? If you are a small businessperson and you are going to increase your payroll--maybe you are giving raises or bonuses, and so forth, or you are going to hire part-time or full-time people, if you hire those people--and just a clear example is if your payroll is $200,000, and your payroll goes up by $20,000 to $220,000, you will get a tax break of 10 percent, which is $2,000. What will that small business do with that $2,000? In a big business that just gets lost in some pile. Maybe it goes to some corporate salary. But here is what a small businessperson will do with it. They will get that $2,000, and they might now go recarpet their lease-hold improvement or their rental space they are using for their small business. What does that mean? That $2,000 now goes to the carpet layer and the carpet seller. What will they do with it? They will put it into the next part of the economy. It just keeps moving much quicker and faster in the economy. As a matter of fact, every $1 we see out there has a multiplier effect that is pretty significant for small business. So the one piece is giving tax credits for small businesses to increase their payrolls. It may be for increased salaries or for increased employment. Either way you are putting more money into the working people of this economy and, therefore, they are putting it back into the economy. The second piece of the act is the depreciation. If you are not a small businessperson, you do not really pay a lot of attention to this. But the way the IRS Code works is if you invest in new equipment, carpeting, sheet rock, lighting, whatever, the IRS has these schedules to deappreciate this over many years. Here is how it works: First, we have the tax credit for payroll, and now we have a second piece of this bill, which is accelerated or bonus depreciation, which means if you are thinking of an idea--I will tell you, a small business I just visited in Alaska called Lime Solar, by Chet Dyson and Jessie Moe--these are two young men who are starting a small business to sell solar products for homes and businesses, but they got a lease-hold space. They rented a space. It had no sheet rock, no lighting. They are responsible for paying for all of that. So they invested, they cleaned it up, sheet-rocked it, fixed it all up, put equipment in. All that expense now--if this bill passes--can be written off in the first year instead of depreciating it over multiple years. Why is that important? Let's assume they spent $100,000 renovating their facility and they are in a 25-percent tax bracket. They will save in the first year $25,000--like that--instead of spreading that over the next 10 or 15 years. Why is that important? That $25,000 they save in taxes or depreciation they will be able to reinvest, reinvest into their business as they struggle to figure out how to build their markets. Another friend of mine, Jack Lewis, opened his second restaurant recently, Firetap. Restaurants are not a cheap business. I have been in that business. I would not wish it on anybody. It is a tough business. Margins are thin. But, again, he invested, he built it, built it all out of scratch. Now he can, again, under this bonus depreciation schedule depreciate it, write it off in the first year. That is a huge benefit for these small businesses. When I look at another small company called SteamDot Coffee--it is a small coffee company. Jonathan White owns it. They brew their own coffee, have their own coffee, and they also package it and manufacture it for resale. That takes a lot of equipment. Now they get to write that off in the first year. What this bill does is simple, but yet it has a huge impact. As a matter of fact, under the depreciation it is estimated that for every $1 we give in the tax benefit, there is a $9 benefit to the GDP, a 1- to-9 ratio. Any businessperson would love that deal. That is a great deal. So this bill, I hope--our colleagues have shown by 80 to 14 this is a great bipartisan effort. I hope we now move to the next stage. Maybe we will have some amendments and work through it. But lets do it for the small business community of this country, for the State I live in, and for every State. I say to the Acting President pro tempore, the State of New York is piled with small businesses. When you go through New York City, every inch of the street has a small businessperson. That is what drives this economy. That is what makes this economy happen. That is where we need to put our investment. I will end on this note: I know we will have some pro forma votes, as I call them, show-and-tell. We will vote on this 20-percent tax rate deduction that is being proposed by the House. It sounds good, but there is no guarantee that is going to go back into the economy. As a matter of fact, if you are a hedge funder, you will get that break. If you are an attorney, you will get that break. If you are a small businessperson, you will get that break. But there is no guarantee that money goes back into the economy. So if we are going to give these tax incentives, let's make sure it is helping the economy and building jobs and building a future for us. So, Madam President, I just wanted to come down and speak on this bill and encourage my colleagues to support the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act, not only through the pro forma vote we had yesterday to move forward on it but also to really pass it. We have done a great job the last few months passing a lot of legislation out of this body. Let's continue that effort and help our economy grow. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 11, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a roundtable to discuss ``Medicare Physician Payments: Perspectives from Physicians.''

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 11, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing titled ``The Future of Homeland Security: Evolving and Emerging Threats.''

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 11, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Impact on Competition of Exclusion Orders to Enforce Standard-Essential Patents.''

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 11, 2012, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a very important piece of legislation--the Mental Health First Aid Higher Education Act. The bill authorizes a nationwide demonstration program that treats Mental Health First Aid like the first aid training offered by Red Cross chapters across the United States. Mental Health First Aid teaches the warning signs and risk factors for schizophrenia, major clinical depression, panic attacks, anxiety disorders, trauma, and other common mental disorders, crisis de- escalation techniques, and equips college and university staff with a 5-step action plan to help individuals in psychiatric crisis connect to professional mental health care. One in four adults and 10 percent of children in the United States will suffer from a mental illness this year. We know what to do if someone has a heart attack, but how do we react to someone having a panic attack? Why do we wait for a tragic event to take notice and then bring out emergency measures? When I was Mayor of Anchorage, we worked with the local NAMI organization to train our police in Crisis Intervention Teams, great when responding to a crisis by police officers, but now we need to go further. Mental Health First Aid is for the financial aid workers, the dormitory resident advisers, coaches, and faculty members, to name a few. These are the front-line folks who will learn the warning signs and risk factors before tragedy strikes. You have heard me say this before, an it is not something to be proud of in Alaska: we have one of the highest suicide prevalence rates in the country. Further, we are a very rural State, where access to mental health care and medical services is often very difficult. Even today, it is not widely known that fully \2/3\ of Alaska can only be accessed by airplane. By educating the general public about the warning signs of common mental disorders, we can intervene early, facilitate access to care, improve clinical outcomes, reduce costs, and maybe save lives. My bill focuses on higher education because many mental illnesses are ``adult onset conditions,'' meaning onset of full symptoms generally occurs in late adolescence or young adulthood--just as young people are headed off to college. Therefore, the audiences for this vital training will encompass on-campus counseling center staff, dormitory resident advisers, university threat assessment teams, members of disciplinary committees, coaches and faculty members. The instruction will highlight available mental health resources in local communities including Community Mental Health Centers, emergency psychiatric facilities, hospital emergency rooms and other programs offering psychiatric crisis beds. The program may also help to avert violence incidents; Mental Health First Aid gained wide public recognition in the aftermath of the tragic shootings in Tucson, AZ, involving our former colleague Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Mental disorders are more common than heart disease and cancer combined and a recent Governing magazine article reports that many states and localities are moving ahead--teaching their employees how to recognize the signs of mental health problems and how to help. In this time of austerity, the training is not only important, because it will save lives, it is also inexpensive. Courses costs about $180, a small price to pay to potentially save lives. In closing, yes, we are in a presidential election year and the political season often highlights the issues that divide us as Americans. But the Mental Health First Aid Higher Education Act is not one of them. In the Alaska tradition, I seek to work across the aisle, and I strongly believe this legislation merits bipartisan support. Please join me in supporting this vital education program that helps to avert suffering, prevent violence and ultimately will save lives.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a very important piece of legislation--the Mental Health First Aid Higher Education Act. The bill authorizes a nationwide demonstration program that treats Mental Health First Aid like the first aid training offered by Red Cross chapters across the United States. Mental Health First Aid teaches the warning signs and risk factors for schizophrenia, major clinical depression, panic attacks, anxiety disorders, trauma, and other common mental disorders, crisis de- escalation techniques, and equips college and university staff with a 5-step action plan to help individuals in psychiatric crisis connect to professional mental health care. One in four adults and 10 percent of children in the United States will suffer from a mental illness this year. We know what to do if someone has a heart attack, but how do we react to someone having a panic attack? Why do we wait for a tragic event to take notice and then bring out emergency measures? When I was Mayor of Anchorage, we worked with the local NAMI organization to train our police in Crisis Intervention Teams, great when responding to a crisis by police officers, but now we need to go further. Mental Health First Aid is for the financial aid workers, the dormitory resident advisers, coaches, and faculty members, to name a few. These are the front-line folks who will learn the warning signs and risk factors before tragedy strikes. You have heard me say this before, an it is not something to be proud of in Alaska: we have one of the highest suicide prevalence rates in the country. Further, we are a very rural State, where access to mental health care and medical services is often very difficult. Even today, it is not widely known that fully \2/3\ of Alaska can only be accessed by airplane. By educating the general public about the warning signs of common mental disorders, we can intervene early, facilitate access to care, improve clinical outcomes, reduce costs, and maybe save lives. My bill focuses on higher education because many mental illnesses are ``adult onset conditions,'' meaning onset of full symptoms generally occurs in late adolescence or young adulthood--just as young people are headed off to college. Therefore, the audiences for this vital training will encompass on-campus counseling center staff, dormitory resident advisers, university threat assessment teams, members of disciplinary committees, coaches and faculty members. The instruction will highlight available mental health resources in local communities including Community Mental Health Centers, emergency psychiatric facilities, hospital emergency rooms and other programs offering psychiatric crisis beds. The program may also help to avert violence incidents; Mental Health First Aid gained wide public recognition in the aftermath of the tragic shootings in Tucson, AZ, involving our former colleague Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Mental disorders are more common than heart disease and cancer combined and a recent Governing magazine article reports that many states and localities are moving ahead--teaching their employees how to recognize the signs of mental health problems and how to help. In this time of austerity, the training is not only important, because it will save lives, it is also inexpensive. Courses costs about $180, a small price to pay to potentially save lives. In closing, yes, we are in a presidential election year and the political season often highlights the issues that divide us as Americans. But the Mental Health First Aid Higher Education Act is not one of them. In the Alaska tradition, I seek to work across the aisle, and I strongly believe this legislation merits bipartisan support. Please join me in supporting this vital education program that helps to avert suffering, prevent violence and ultimately will save lives.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I would like to have the Record reflect if there had been a rollcall vote, I would have voted no on this item.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I would like to thank my colleagues for coming to the floor and especially thank Senator Whitehouse for organizing all of us to come here to speak on an issue that is really the core of what we do here: to figure out how to build infrastructure for this country so our private sector can have the infrastructure to work from and play off of. But let's be very blunt and very honest about what is happening. This Transportation reauthorization bill passed this body with 74 votes. It was a bipartisan effort, hard fought, with incredible debate, encompassing many different issues. Now it sits in a conference committee with House Members, led by the Republican majority over there, not wanting to move forward. Let's be very blunt about this. Not only do we have that bill over there, we have the VAWA bill, the FDA bill, the postal reform bill, and they are all just piling up over in the House. People wonder why the economy has been struggling this last month. Well, all the business that we should be doing and that we are doing here on the Senate side-- we are passing stuff--is all piling up over there on the House side. Actually, I did what we were calling ``Begich Minutes,'' give or take a few seconds. I went to the middle of the Capitol and described this incident of where we pass a bill, and then I physically pointed to the House side to show where the bill is now stalled. We have a small group within the Republican majority over there that is holding the Speaker hostage, literally, because they want to cut the Transportation bill by over one-third, which would devastate the infrastructure of this country. Let me say from my own experience--and I know Senator Whitehouse has heard this, and others have as well--as a former mayor, I was in charge of the metropolitan planning organization for our community of Anchorage, which maintained at that time approximately 45 or 48 percent of the population of the State. We were in charge of managing the road money. Every time Congress delayed their action or were ineffective in getting their work done, as a mayor, I had to put projects off, stall projects, and hold contracts and tell contractors they couldn't get to work. That created uncertainty, which at the end of the day does one thing: It costs more money. And the people who pay for that are the taxpayers. So they sit over there in the House. I saw a comment that they want to do another extension. Well, we have had nine extensions. For people who don't know what extensions are, it is where the Congress says: Well, we will extend this bill for another week, another 2 weeks, another month. But these extensions create more uncertainty and add more cost. Every time you hear the word ``extension'' from the other side, that just means you--the taxpayers of this country--are paying more in taxes. That is what that means, pure and simple. ``Extension'' means you pay more for a project that should have been on the board and moving forward. We have a bipartisan bill, with 74 Democrats and Republicans on the Senate side having voted for it. It is now lingering in conference. We are now in the midst of the construction season. In Alaska--and I know my colleague from Minnesota, who has joined us, will know about this--the construction season is short. We need to have contracts let in early spring in order to construct in the summer and be completed by September or October because the asphalt plants close. When the asphalt plants close, you can't put asphalt on the streets. It is very simple. We have a very limited time. So the contracting community is frustrated and angry because they do not get the certainty they need to hire the people. They can't get them to work. So I plead with the folks on the other side, the extreme folks in the Republican majority over there who are holding the Speaker hostage on this issue, let's do what is right for America. Let's make sure these jobs, these 3 million jobs that could be retained and added, move forward. In an economy where every job makes a difference, we are talking here about 3 million jobs. Let's move this forward. Let's quit the politics. What is amazing about this--and I heard Senator Whitehouse say this more than once--if the Speaker of the House would just allow the Senate bill to go to the floor for a vote, I can guarantee what will happen: Democrats and a group of Republicans will support that bill and pass it. But that is not the issue. We have a very small subset of the majority of the Republicans over in the House who have told the majority leader he is not moving anything--nothing, zero--because they are not betting on America like we are. We bet on America. We are betting on the right things. What they want to do is to cripple this country for their own political gamesmanship. I have to say--and I would bet every one of my colleagues here would say the same thing--that when I go back home to Alaska, I hear how fed up people are with this. They are frustrated by the inability of Congress to do its work. And I have told my folks back in Alaska that the Senate is doing its work. We are passing bipartisan bills. But they get jammed up by a small group of extreme Republican tea party folks who believe the best way to solve problems is to do nothing and to let this economy falter. So I hope Members will come to their senses over there. I can say that my Congressman, the Republican from Alaska, is working hard to get this bill passed. He is on the conference committee. He is one of the Republicans who would vote with Democrats to get things done on this Transportation bill. Why? Because he likes building things. I like building things. But there are some other folks over there who have no interest in helping to build this country and make it a better place. So, again, I yield my time. I hope folks on the other side in that extreme group will get some sense knocked into them. Maybe the American people will do it. I hope so. Madam President, I yield the floor at this point for my friend from Minnesota.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I wish to memorialize the Honorable Robert Boochever, a retired jurist of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Born in New York in 1917, Judge Boochever led a distinguished and balanced life while he helped to build a community, define the laws of a new State, and serve his country. Among the rarest of men, he is remembered as much for his love of family as for his commitment to community and dedication to duty. As a graduate of Cornell University's School of Law, Bob joined the U.S. Army Infantry and in 1941 was stationed in Newfoundland. There, Captain Boochever met Connie, an Army nurse, who was to be his wife until her death in 1999. After his 1945 discharge, the couple came north to Alaska where Bob served as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Alaska Territory. In 1947 Bob entered private practice at the law firm Faulkner, Banfield, Boochever, and Doogan. For the next 25 years, he focused his diverse talents on his firm, his family and his community. As the leader on more than a dozen community and professional boards, he helped to shape the capital city of Juneau and the State of Alaska. Whether as president of the Juneau or Alaska Bar Association, Juneau Rotary, or the Juneau Chamber of Commerce, Bob had a hand in policy development and quality of life for a developing territory and State. He chaired Juneau's first city Planning Commission, helped to develop a comprehensive plan, and served on the selection committee to choose a site for the University of Alaska Southeast. He was recognized with an honorary doctorate at UAS, and in 1974, was chosen as ``The Man of the Year'' for the Juneau Chamber of Commerce. He also received a Distinguished Alumnus Award from Cornell Law School. A quiet man of many talents, Bob was an accomplished athlete. He lettered in four sports during high school and two at Cornell--football and tennis. In the Army he learned to ski, so in Juneau he helped to develop Eaglecrest, a highly acclaimed community operated ski slope. His granddaughter, Hilary Lindh, got her start there and became a silver medalist at the 1992 Albertville Winter Olympics. A quiet man with a twinkle in his eye, Bob loved his family and, with Connie, helped to raise four wonderful daughters. Complementing Connie's love and advocacy for the arts, he was a poet, a writer, and played the piano, creating stories and songs for each of his children. He championed family camping trips, bird watching, fly fishing, and made major expeditions to explore for new places to fish. He wrote stories for publication in Alaska Magazine about his travels. In 1972, ready for a new professional challenge, Bob accepted Governor Bill Egan's appointment to the Alaska Supreme Court. During eight years on the bench, he served four as Chief Justice. Many cases in which he played an integral part are frequently referenced, in particular: Ravin v. State established the right to privacy in a person's home; and Aguchak v. Mongtomery Ward limited a creditor's ability to collect a debt against a rural Alaskan by filing a case in an Alaska court distant from their home. Recognized for his protection of individual rights and liberties, Justice Boochever was tapped in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter to serve on the Nation's largest appellate court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The first Alaskan so appointed, he presided as an active member for six years before achieving senior status, which he held until his passing on October 9, 2011. Praised as a man who wanted to improve the administration of justice, Judge Robert Boochever was someone who championed the rights of minorities and the disadvantaged. His colleagues have said he was the best writer on the bench--succinct, clear, and to the point. He was a person of integrity who was honest, warm and caring; and a gentle, generous man who was a tireless advocate. Robert Boochever was among the best of men and a great Alaskan. We are better because of his caring and compassion for family and community, his commitment to public service and fair adjudication, and his outstanding contributions and investments in the humanities. Our deepest condolences are extended to his family--daughters Barbara Lindh, Ann Boochever, Linda Boochever, and Miriam Medenica; step- daughters Betty Thompson, Joan Stark and Laurie Craig; his 11 grandchildren; and his 3 great-grandchildren.