Mark Begich

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I come for a few minutes on the floor. I am down here with Senator Wyden from Oregon, and I want to talk a little bit and probably in an informal way about a piece of legislation, a bipartisan piece of legislation on tax fairness and simplification. There is one thing I hear a lot about when I go back home and when I was running for office, when I was mayor, and serving in our city government--how do you simplify the process of taxes, making them fairer for the middle class. For all my time prior to serving in the Senate, I have thought about these ideas and ways we can move forward. When I was mayor, we simplified the business taxes for our small businesses, making it easier and simpler, lowering their tax burden, for our residents doing the same thing. Here I am in the Senate and I look at lots of legislation every day, as I know you do, Mr. President, and I know the Senator from Oregon does. We see all sorts of ideas created and put on the table, and one which intrigued me was the Wyden-Gregg bill, which is focused on simplifying the tax paperwork mill, I call it, that we are subjected to every single year as individuals; the mound of paper we have to fill out not only as an individual but as a small businessperson trying to go through the rules and regulations and what is a reasonable amount of taxation that we should pay; also, the complicated system in what is owed or hopefully refunded back to us because we overpaid the IRS. As I looked at a lot of different ideas, I have to tell you this idea--as we debate here on the floor a small business plan, small business ideas--sooner or later we will debate the Bush tax cuts and what we will do with those. To me, there is a simpler solution when it comes to issues of taxation, what we are going to do lowering the tax burden on small business, lowering the tax burden on the middle class, and simplifying it. Today there are so many different things we have to worry about and focus on: multiple retirement accounts we are trying to balance, trying to figure out who is a dependent, who is not, doing our returns--how to simplify this so our life is less burdened by the IRS. I want to first commend Senator Wyden and Senator Gregg for their work in multiple years pushing this issue forward, trying to figure out how we can help the middle class and the small business people of this country lower their tax burden; getting the IRS, as we would say back home in Alaska, out of our pockets. They have done a good job. If there is no objection from the Presiding Officer, if it is OK, I will ask Senator Wyden to join me here with couple of questions. Sometimes you look at these bills and you wonder are they too good to be true. Here we have, if I am not mistaken, not only the Heritage Foundation and some of the more conservative groups as well as the more liberal groups, the Brookings Institution and others, commenting positively about this legislation. In my year and a half here I have not seen that on anything. We have Republicans and Democrats who are looking at it positively. We have business groups that look at it positively because it lessens their burden and allows them to reinvest in their businesses, to grow this economy. It reduces the deficit, which I know Senator Wyden, myself, and others--like yourself, Mr. President--are concerned about-- the growing deficit and the burden it may lay onto future generations. But it also has true tax reduction, tax relief for the middle class and businesses. When you see something such as that--and, by the way, you can also do this in one page, a one-page return. When you hear those kinds of things, those claims, you are wondering, What is the catch? What does the small print say? What are you going to get hooked into and pay a pretty good price for later? We have been going through it, I have been going through it. Actually when you first introduced it before I was a Senator, I looked at this legislation when I campaigned. Here I am now in the Senate with a chance to participate, to see what we can do to accelerate this. We are going to talk a lot about the tax extender bill and other tax issues in the future. But my view is it is time to reform the system. The system is broken. The middle class is paying higher than they should. Small businesses are burdened with incredible paperwork and increased costs. It is time that we reform the system and do something that is dramatic and makes a difference. Today it is an honor to be down here. Senator Wyden, I hope doesn't mind; I have extracted off of every piece of his Web site every document related to this, the research to understand it, to make sure I do not see that small print that later I might regret. So far what I have seen is small print, big print, that I do not regret and that is why a few weeks ago I cosponsored the legislation to be one of those who joined the team, to move us forward to real reform. I know when I joined, Senator Bob Bennett from Utah also joined on-- again, focused on the same issues we are, again keeping it a bipartisan, fair, simplification of taxes. No one likes to talk about taxes. No one loves to be around April 15. But the fact is, it does occur. So how do we make the burden less on middle-class America? How do we make the burden less on small businesses? This bill does it. So, again, I say to the Senator from Oregon, I wish to make sure I am saying the right stuff. So maybe the Senator could comment back to me. But it does have a positive impact. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the numbers, for example, on average for a small business, they are pretty much going to be guaranteed they are going to save at least $5,000 in taxes and more, depending on the size of their business. For middle-class America, they are clearly going to save. Their rates will be lower, which means their cash out of their pocket will be less to the IRS, meaning the IRS is not reaching in there, not only in your front pocket but your back pocket. They will have less capacity to do that. Tell me, I hope I am right on this and I do not want to mislead--the public is watching--but also make sure I am correct.

Mr. BEGICH. To the Senator from Oregon, I will close and say thank you very much. It is kind of like the Senator said, a fork in the road. It is a moment. We can continue to do business as usual, tinker with it a little bit here, a little bit there, have special interests kind of run the show or we can turn it back to the American people by helping them keep more money in their pockets, helping small business keep more money in their pockets. Let them invest in the economy, as the data that I have seen around this can show, that over a 10-year spread, you will add over $2 trillion to the GDP, based on small business reinvesting those dollars instead of the IRS grabbing them from them. This is a positive step. I do think, I hope as our colleagues--a couple of them are on the floor and we will stop in a second so they can get their time to do their presentations. But I know and I hope other colleagues are watching and listening because this is a moment maybe in this body that we can actually do some significant reform in a bipartisan way. I do not sit on Banking. I do not sit on Finance. Some people have asked me: Well, if you are not on those committees, why are you interested in this? Well, simply because it has a simplification of the tax return system. It lowers middle-class taxes and those on small business. That is what drives this economy. That is what we should be focused on. So I credit these Senators for stepping up, kind of plowing the field in a way. I am a latecomer to this. But I am going to be one of those who is taking that plow and putting a high-speed engine on it so we can keep plowing more and getting more folks, hopefully, on board. So, at the end of the day, the American people can look at this Congress, Republicans and Democrats, and say: They did something that reformed the system, made it simpler in our lives, saved the middle-class taxpayer money and improved and lowered the taxes for small business. Now the business economy is humming along and investing those dollars to grow this economy and keeping those jobs right here in the country. So thank you for allowing us a few minutes to, hopefully, start to engage the Congress as we move into tinkering with the Tax Code, so we do something different and we reform the Tax Code for the betterment of this country.

Mr. BEGICH. That is actually right. One thing I thought, wow, $300 billion tax relief, predominately for middle-class America. I thought my phone would be ringing off the hook with people saying: Wow, what a great relief. If we got 1 e-mail on this out of the 1,000 or so e-mails and phone calls we get every single week, I would be surprised. Because, as the Senator said, it is a complicated system we have, and when we do relief, no one will even notice it. That is why I was so attracted to Senator Wyden and Senator Gregg's proposal, because it is reform. It is changing the system for the better. It is ensuring that middle-class America, making sure small businesses benefit. That is when I was shocked, actually. I know if I was back in the mayor's office when we did the small business relief, making sure 90- plus percent of our small businesses did not have to fill out the paperwork anymore and got relief, I heard from them because they were very appreciative because they could reinvest it. But we made it real because we reformed it, not just tinkered with it as you talk about how the past Congresses have done.

Mr. BEGICH. If I may interject.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. I appreciate the Senator coming up for a couple of minutes while I echo the concerns of the Senator from Louisiana. I listened to this debate that was going on for hour after hour and, as a new Member, I have to echo what the Senator said. The committee worked on it. They worked very hard, and not just the last few weeks. For the last year and a half it seems like she has been working on this--a good small business package that ensures that the small business communities of this country in my State and your State and the State of the Presiding Officer can move forward, can advance. The Senator did not come to agreement on some, so she came to the floor. She worked an amendment and 60 people supported it. That is part of the bill now. That is part of the process. I don't know about this idea of going behind closed doors and trying to work it out when you have done that. You have done the people's business in front of the people. That is exactly how, I thought, as a new Member of this body, it works. You fight your fight in the committee, you win or lose, and then you get a chance down here hopefully to offer an amendment. It might pass, it might not pass. I think what we have tried to do--and I commend the Senator for it-- in this bill, to echo what the Senator said, is about $12 billion that the small business community will not have to pay to the IRS. It will save them money. It will get the IRS out of their pockets. This is good for small business. When they made the comment on their side this might be killing time, they are killing small business. Every day we wait to not allow them an opportunity to reduce their taxes, to save them money, to give them a chance to expand their businesses, is outrageous. The second piece, on the loan package, is a great loan package. No one is forcing the community banks to do it; it is an option. If they do it, they get a lower rate that the small businesses then benefit from and create new jobs and more jobs. They are the creators of the new economy and long-term economy of this country. Fifty-six percent of the employment in my State is from small business. This is a good plan. Why they want to go into all these other amendments that have no relationship to small business--it is appalling. That is why the American people are so mad at Congress, why we have an 11-percent popularity rating, because people want to put on their special deals so they can say some statements in a campaign, when we should be focused on small business. We can all say then we helped save this country from another economic collapse because we actually invested in the people who build jobs, who work every single day. As we sit here and wrangle over a couple of amendments, they are trying to make their businesses survive. I was not planning to speak. I just got a little agitated. Again, as a new Member I get so frustrated with all these political gimmicks they want to add on the bills when we should be focused on one thing. Small business is what we need to protect. I have been in the small business world. I have taken out these 7(a) loans that SBA does. I have dealt with the 504 loans. I have seen the impact in my State, tripling the amount of small business loans because we made adjustments in the Recovery Act that you are now trying to extend. It works. It actually creates real jobs. For us to sit down here and have the other side come down and say we are killing time--they are killing small business every day. I got a little agitated. I wanted to come down and say my piece. As a person who had my first business license at the age of 16 and still continue to have business licenses today--my wife is a small business owner--we understand what businesses go through. When the chairman of the Finance Committee talked about the 179 depreciation, accelerate it, that is a huge benefit. If you can write off $250,000 in the first year and put in the 30-percent tax bracket, that is a $75,000-plus savings, hard cash now that small businesses can generate and put into their businesses. I don't know how many people on the other side have been in small businesses and have had to struggle and deal with their bankers and deal with tax returns and all that. I have. These provisions will make a difference and create jobs, not only today but in the future. I commend the chairwoman for what she is doing. I agree, it is a simple solution. Let's move on, save our businesses, save our country, and protect the jobs we need to have in this country. I will stop there before I go on.

Mr. BEGICH

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

Mr. BEGICH. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BEGICH

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

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the Chamber. I was watching on the floor last night, and I watched the Senator a little bit ago as I came out of a meeting. I am not scheduled to be here. But as a small businessperson all my life--my first business license was at age 14. My next big venture was at age 18. I have been in the vending business, the real estate business, the developing business. I have been a restaurant owner. I can go through a shopping list. My wife owns four retail stores, a small business woman. She started her business selling smoked salmon on a street corner in downtown Anchorage. She now employs 30-plus people, multiple stores, and works to engage other young, small business people to move forward. There is no question that the legislation the Senator from Louisiana has been working on--the broader issue on small businesses but specifically the loan fund--is critical. She is right. The Senator's point about how the big banks got theirs and left the small business community literally, not on Main Street, not even close to Main Street--they were kicked off Main Street. I thank Senator Landrieu for making this a big issue, pushing forward on it, and also working with Republicans to try to bring them over. It sounds as if she got one so far. I think he has made the right decision. He has seen the impact on small businesses in his communities. The Senator from Louisiana was on fire last night, I have to say. She was making the point that this is the time to stand for small businesses because they are the ones that are going to rebuild this economy, they are the ones that are going to hire people not next year, not 3 years from now because they want to hoard their profits. They are going to, as the economy recovers, hire immediately. The small businessperson who has two or three people working for them and their business increases 10, 20 percent, the odds are they are going to hire someone the next day. That is the power of this lending act, this amendment that is critical. I want to emphasize that point and thank my colleague because, as one of the few small business people in this body, one who has had to knock on those bankers' doors to try to get a few dollars out of them to take a dream and make it reality, or one who has seen small business and helped them expand, I again thank you. This is going to have the biggest bang. As to the $30 billion, no one is forcing it onto these community banks either; it is an option. If they want to help small businesses--I know many come to your office, come to my colleagues on the Democratic side--$30 billion leverages to $300 billion. This is a real economic boon and a real opportunity, and is going to build small businesses. I thank my colleague for giving me these couple of minutes. I thank the Senators from Florida for teaming up and also recognizing the value of this.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Illinois, I was presiding for about a half hour. I was not planning on speaking. I know my staff right now is getting very nervous that I am speaking on the floor of the Senate without their knowledge, but I do want to say a couple things. I say to the Senator, one, he is absolutely right on unemployment benefits and what we need to do in the next day or so. But I want to go back to his first comment. I was at the meeting yesterday with the President, and I sat next to Senator Alexander and heard the question on the oilspill issue. The comment from the Republican leader was that the President just brushed it aside. I am not here to defend the President. He can do his own job defending himself. But the point was, we were doing everything in a very bipartisan way on the oilspill. Tomorrow we have another briefing with the Coast Guard. We had a briefing yesterday. There is a committee meeting I am supposed to be at right now on some liability issues around the Deepwater and what is going on with offshore. There are meetings all over this place. I know the Republican leader was not at the meeting, so I am sure he got the information secondhand. But I was. It was not brushed off. I think all of us, I do not care what State we are from--I am from an oil and gas State--believe in the development of oil and gas, but we are all concerned about the problems down in the gulf and the tragedy and the 11 lives that were lost there. So we are 100 percent committed in this body in a bipartisan way. What I found amazing--and the Senator's point was we can do more than one thing in this body. I believe I can. I know everyone around me and around my caucus believes that. So we are going to work on the oilspill. Absolutely we want to cap it. But that is going on now. They are 16,000 feet down on a second drill, a relief drill. They are about 1,000 feet away. We know that is being worked on. But the reality is, we have to have a comprehensive energy plan in this country. The fact is, if we want to talk about jobs and job creation in the future, that is a huge potential for us. This debate, when we get to it--I know some want to make it cap and tax, cap and trade, cap and cap, cap and something. But the reality is, this is about a comprehensive energy plan. This is about creating a plan that gets us more secure for our national security. I say to the Senator, he talked about the amount of money we spend overseas going to countries that do not like us. They spend that money against us. It is in our best interests to develop a comprehensive plan, not using the excuses that have gone around this place for the last 40 years. We need to get busy and do it for the consumer, do it for our national security, do it for our economic security, and do it for the future of job creation in this economy. So if we want to talk about the oilspill, absolutely. We will work double-time on that. We are doing it from every end of the Capitol and all across this country. As a matter of fact, today another report came out. A multinational effort, a multicountry effort from around the world has come to our assistance in the gulf. But we also need to be dealing with a comprehensive energy plan. In Alaska, we are doing it. By 2025 we intend to have 50 percent of our energy produced by renewable energy. Even though we are dependent on oil and gas for the economic viability of our State, we recognize the diversity that has to happen: In Kodiak, AK, 10 years ago, zero; today, almost 85 percent renewable energy. The largest Coast Guard station in this country is in Kodiak, AK, which will be run by renewable energy: biofuels, hydro, wind energy. We have to be real about this issue. I understand the politics of November is coming. Everyone wants to be for something, against something so they can figure out what constituencies they win or lose in an election. The people who will lose if we do not get a comprehensive energy plan is the public. It does not matter if we are Democrat or Republican, Green Party, Independent. You name it. We are going to be affected because we will continue to import from foreign sources that do not like us. We will continue to put our country at risk from a national security perspective, and we will not recognize that we are now No. 2, No. 3 when it comes to energy technology and China is beating us. That is unacceptable for this country to be No. 2 or No. 3 on this issue. We should be No. 1. For people to come down wanting to pigeon- hole this and claim we do not have the capacity in the Senate to do more than one thing is unbelievable. We will work double-time on the oilspill. But we must work double-time on developing an energy policy that moves us to better security for our country, our economic security, and to make sure we see the future. The future is a new energy economy that creates new jobs in this country. So I was not planning to speak, I say to the Senator from Illinois, but he sparked me. I get agitated sometimes when this body--not the Senator, obviously, but the Republican leader--when they want to just do one thing. It is like when a person gets a meal on a plate, and one person just likes to eat the corn first, complete it all, and then they move to the next thing. We have the capacity to do many things in this Senate. We have spent 40 years--from the last major embargo in 1974-- twiddling our thumbs and doing small, little, special interest legislation for energy. Now let's do the right legislation for the American people and do it right for our national security. So I will stop on my rant. My staff is probably sweating bullets right now. They had no idea I was going to be down here doing this. I am off to a committee hearing. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BEGICH. I thank the Senator for sparking me for the day.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation requiring BP and other oil companies to set aside ample funding in an escrow account controlled--not by the company but by the Federal Government-- to address the damage and claims from a major catastrophic oil spill like the current Gulf of Mexico spill. Twenty-one years ago, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground, gushing an estimated 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska waters. This was the worst oil spill in American history, with oil hitting 1,300 miles of shoreline and killing hundreds of thousands of birds and marine mammals. Thousands of hard-working Alaskans, just like the residents of the Gulf, lost millions of dollars as their livelihoods collapsed. To add insult to injury, for nearly two decades Exxon fought the legitimate claims of Alaskans harmed by the spill for nearly two decades. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court when in 2008, the Court issued a final judgment, reducing Exxon's punitive liability to just 10 percent of what the original court had ordered. During those 19 years, hundreds of Alaskans entitled to damages had died; thousands of others' lives were forever harmed. We Alaskans learned many lessons from the Exxon Valdez spill. One of the most important was to set up a system as early as possible to guarantee that those affected by oil spills are justly compensated. That is what my bill is designed to do. I am certainly pleased BP has agreed to set up an escrow account voluntarily, but I believe Congress should underscore their commitment in law and to protect Americans from future spills. This bill, the Guaranteed Oil Spill Compensation Act of 2010, requires BP or any other party responsible for an oil spill interested in future Federal oil and gas leases to deposit into an escrow account held by the U.S. Government enough money to compensate those affected by a spill. In the event of a spill, the Secretary of Interior can make an assessment of outstanding liability under provisions of the Federal legislation passed in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90. The spiller must then deposit funds equal to the total liability minus the liability established for incident by OPA 90 into a separate fund to be administered by the Secretary for claims and costs related to that spill. Unexpended funds would be returned to the spiller at the earlier of 5 years after the date of deposit or the date the Secretary determines all Federal, State, and civil claims have been satisfied. The measure would have no affect on other liability. I believe this legislation achieves what many of us want: ensuring Americans damaged by this oil spill and future catastrophic spills are fairly compensated in a timely way. This didn't happen to Alaskans with the Exxon Valdez. We must ensure it does happen for our Americans in the Gulf of Mexico. This is another tool as Congress works on liability reform designed to make those injured whole again, while at the same time allowing responsible companies to provide oil our country needs. The Guaranteed Oil Spill Compensation Act of 2010 is the first of a package of bills I intend to introduce designed to make oil companies financially responsible for the cost of oil spills; expand scientific research, especially in the Arctic; provide a steady source of Federal funding for additional science and resources needed in the Far North to deal with oil and gas development; and provide greater citizen involvement in oil development.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation requiring BP and other oil companies to set aside ample funding in an escrow account controlled--not by the company but by the Federal Government-- to address the damage and claims from a major catastrophic oil spill like the current Gulf of Mexico spill. Twenty-one years ago, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground, gushing an estimated 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska waters. This was the worst oil spill in American history, with oil hitting 1,300 miles of shoreline and killing hundreds of thousands of birds and marine mammals. Thousands of hard-working Alaskans, just like the residents of the Gulf, lost millions of dollars as their livelihoods collapsed. To add insult to injury, for nearly two decades Exxon fought the legitimate claims of Alaskans harmed by the spill for nearly two decades. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court when in 2008, the Court issued a final judgment, reducing Exxon's punitive liability to just 10 percent of what the original court had ordered. During those 19 years, hundreds of Alaskans entitled to damages had died; thousands of others' lives were forever harmed. We Alaskans learned many lessons from the Exxon Valdez spill. One of the most important was to set up a system as early as possible to guarantee that those affected by oil spills are justly compensated. That is what my bill is designed to do. I am certainly pleased BP has agreed to set up an escrow account voluntarily, but I believe Congress should underscore their commitment in law and to protect Americans from future spills. This bill, the Guaranteed Oil Spill Compensation Act of 2010, requires BP or any other party responsible for an oil spill interested in future Federal oil and gas leases to deposit into an escrow account held by the U.S. Government enough money to compensate those affected by a spill. In the event of a spill, the Secretary of Interior can make an assessment of outstanding liability under provisions of the Federal legislation passed in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90. The spiller must then deposit funds equal to the total liability minus the liability established for incident by OPA 90 into a separate fund to be administered by the Secretary for claims and costs related to that spill. Unexpended funds would be returned to the spiller at the earlier of 5 years after the date of deposit or the date the Secretary determines all Federal, State, and civil claims have been satisfied. The measure would have no affect on other liability. I believe this legislation achieves what many of us want: ensuring Americans damaged by this oil spill and future catastrophic spills are fairly compensated in a timely way. This didn't happen to Alaskans with the Exxon Valdez. We must ensure it does happen for our Americans in the Gulf of Mexico. This is another tool as Congress works on liability reform designed to make those injured whole again, while at the same time allowing responsible companies to provide oil our country needs. The Guaranteed Oil Spill Compensation Act of 2010 is the first of a package of bills I intend to introduce designed to make oil companies financially responsible for the cost of oil spills; expand scientific research, especially in the Arctic; provide a steady source of Federal funding for additional science and resources needed in the Far North to deal with oil and gas development; and provide greater citizen involvement in oil development.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be debated concurrently for the total time specified in this agreement: Sanders, 4318; Vitter, 4312; Franken, 4311; that the Franken amendment be modified with the changes at the desk; with the debate time divided as follows: 20 minutes equally divided between Senators Sanders and Inhofe; 20 minutes equally divided between Senators Baucus and Vitter or their designees; and 20 minutes equally divided between Senators Franken and Vitter or their designees, with no intervening amendments in order; that each of the listed amendments in this agreement be subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold; and that if the amendment, as modified where applicable, achieves that threshold, then it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that if the amendment does not achieve that threshold, then it be withdrawn; that prior to each vote, there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled, and that after the first vote, the succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes each; that upon the use or yielding back of the total time specified above, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed.

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

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, the English author Albert Pine wrote: ``What we have done for ourselves alone, dies with us; what we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal.'' On Memorial Day we come together to recognize and honor those who have truly ``done for others and the world'' and to ensure their service and sacrifice remains immortal. Each year since 1868 we have paused to pay tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and democracy. This freedom we cherish is not free and comes at a horrific price, a price borne by our veterans, both past and present. Our veterans never fought for empires or dominance but, rather, for a cause bigger than any one individual. That cause is freedom and democracy, something many of them would sadly never live to see. There is no greater service to one's country and no greater act of heroism than to stand between our Nation and those who would do us harm. So it is today, Memorial Day 2010, we again come together as a nation recognizing and honoring the valor and courage of the men and women who have given so much--warriors who paved the road of freedom with their service and sacrifices. Alaska has a proud tradition of military service. During World War II, long before Alaska's statehood, the Alaska Territorial Guard stepped up and played a key role in defending Alaska and protecting America's interests. Today Alaska is home to more than 28,000 Active- Duty men and women, many of whom have served multiple tours of duty in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Alaska Army and Air National Guard is also playing a key role in these conflicts by deploying hundreds of Alaskans to combat duty. It is all of our Active-Duty men and women--and their families--whom we should also thank and honor today. To the veterans among us--thank you for your service. We also remember warriors still missing and unaccounted for and continue our commitment to provide the fullest possible accounting and to return them home.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Would the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee yield for a question on provisions of the bill relating to SEC rules on ``accredited investors.''

Mr. BEGICH. Section 412 of the legislation requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct a rulemaking to implement changes to the definition of ``accredited investor'' in regulation D, and other sections of the legislation will require the SEC to conduct other rulemaking to implement the new law. It is my understanding, and I believe the understanding of my colleague from Alaska, that the SEC has authority under existing law to amend the definitions of ``accredited investor'' in Regulation D and related SEC rules and ``qualified institutional buyer'' in rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, to expressly include Federal, State and local government bodies within those definitions. In fact, the SEC proposed to do so in 2007 but has not completed that rulemaking. Does the Senator from Connecticut concur that the SEC already has the authority to amend these definitions?

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I honor Madame Jadranka Kosor, the Prime Minister of Croatia, on the occasion of her visit to Washington, DC. I congratulate her on becoming the first female Prime Minister of Croatia. Additionally, I commend Croatia for its promotion of genuine cooperation in southeast Europe fostering strong relations, stability and prosperity with her neighbors. As a graduate of the Faculty of Law in Zagreb, Vice Prime Minister, Minister of the Family, Veterans' Affairs and Intergenerational Solidarity, she is a woman of much accomplishment. Prime Minister Kosor is dedicated to leading Croatia on its final stages of accession toward membership in the European Union. This is an action strongly supported by the United States. I recognize Prime Minister Kosor's efforts and determination in carrying out all the necessary reforms in this process. She has helped to strengthen the rule of law and the economy of her country in order for it to flourish and enter into the European Union. Croatia is a strong supporter of the United States and its efforts to restore stability and peace to many parts of the world. Croatia is one of the two newest NATO members and a staunch ally of the United States. In Afghanistan Croatia has assisted the United States for years with troops and other ground personnel. Many years ago my paternal grandfather left Croatia for a new life in America. His son, my father, was the first Croatian American elected to the House of Representatives. I am proud to be the first Croatian American elected to the U.S. Senate. I am honored to meet with Prime Minister Kosor to discuss our nations' mutual support for democracy around the world. Mr. President and colleagues, please join me in welcoming Prime Minister Kosor to the United States and honoring the friendship our two countries have.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to amend title 38, related to this Nation's obligation to provide benefits to our veterans. Specifically, the bill I introduce today with my distinguished colleague, Senator Grassley of Iowa will waive collection of copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits for veterans. More than 42,000 veterans are receiving care in their homes, enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration, VHA, Telemedicine program as one form of treatment. In Alaska, as of March 2010, there were 226 veterans receiving this service. Just over 100 of those live in rural Alaska. Home Telehealth programs provide needed care for the 2-3 percent of veterans who account for 30 percent or more of agency resources. These men and women are frequent clinic attendees and often require urgent hospital admissions. VHA programs have demonstrated reduced hospital admissions and clinic and emergency room visits, and contribute to an improved quality of life for our veterans. For no group of veterans is this service more important than for those who live in rural and remote Alaska. Telemedicine has become an increasingly integral component in addressing the needs of veterans residing in rural and remote areas, and is critical to ensuring they have proper access to health care, especially in rural areas. While the VHA is saving taxpayers money by using telemedicine, currently all telemedicine visits require veterans receiving these treatments to make copayments. My legislation would implement a simple fix. It would waive the required copayments--sometimes up to $50.00 per visit--to lessen the burden on our veterans, who have sacrificed in service to our great Nation. I believe that waiving these fees may encourage more veterans to take advantage of VHA's telehealth programs, which can be a godsend for rural veterans with few other viable options. For rural veterans in Alaska, who have to travel by small float planes or boats or even snow machines to get to the nearest clinic for monitoring of their diabetes, high blood pressure, or other chronic conditions, Congress can go a long way in repaying this Nation's debt to our veterans by passing this legislation. The VHA plans to expand Home Telehealth for weight management, substance abuse, mild traumatic brain injury, dementia, and palliative care, as well as enabling veterans to use mobile devices to access care. I would hate to see these vital services go unused by veterans living in remote Alaskan villages because of the cost of copayments. But, this is not primarily about saving veterans money. This is about the Federal Government doing what is good for our veterans. The monetary benefits for veterans are a plus. Basically, this legislation will amend title 38 to authorize the waiver of the collection of copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits of veterans by giving the Secretary the authority to do so. In closing, I must say it is an honor for me to serve as a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. I feel very privileged to be involved with policy formation that helps our veterans, and indeed to be at the same table as the distinguished chairman of the committee, a veteran of World War II himself, Senator Daniel Akaka, who throughout his service in Congress has been a true advocate for our veterans. I appreciate the guidance he has provided me, and the assistance his staff has provided mine in preparation of this legislation. This is a bipartisan bill to address an issue with no partisan connection. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join Senator Grassley and me in co-sponsoring this legislation, and I urge expeditious consideration of the legislation to address a growing need for our rural veterans.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to amend title 38, related to this Nation's obligation to provide benefits to our veterans. Specifically, the bill I introduce today with my distinguished colleague, Senator Grassley of Iowa will waive collection of copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits for veterans. More than 42,000 veterans are receiving care in their homes, enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration, VHA, Telemedicine program as one form of treatment. In Alaska, as of March 2010, there were 226 veterans receiving this service. Just over 100 of those live in rural Alaska. Home Telehealth programs provide needed care for the 2-3 percent of veterans who account for 30 percent or more of agency resources. These men and women are frequent clinic attendees and often require urgent hospital admissions. VHA programs have demonstrated reduced hospital admissions and clinic and emergency room visits, and contribute to an improved quality of life for our veterans. For no group of veterans is this service more important than for those who live in rural and remote Alaska. Telemedicine has become an increasingly integral component in addressing the needs of veterans residing in rural and remote areas, and is critical to ensuring they have proper access to health care, especially in rural areas. While the VHA is saving taxpayers money by using telemedicine, currently all telemedicine visits require veterans receiving these treatments to make copayments. My legislation would implement a simple fix. It would waive the required copayments--sometimes up to $50.00 per visit--to lessen the burden on our veterans, who have sacrificed in service to our great Nation. I believe that waiving these fees may encourage more veterans to take advantage of VHA's telehealth programs, which can be a godsend for rural veterans with few other viable options. For rural veterans in Alaska, who have to travel by small float planes or boats or even snow machines to get to the nearest clinic for monitoring of their diabetes, high blood pressure, or other chronic conditions, Congress can go a long way in repaying this Nation's debt to our veterans by passing this legislation. The VHA plans to expand Home Telehealth for weight management, substance abuse, mild traumatic brain injury, dementia, and palliative care, as well as enabling veterans to use mobile devices to access care. I would hate to see these vital services go unused by veterans living in remote Alaskan villages because of the cost of copayments. But, this is not primarily about saving veterans money. This is about the Federal Government doing what is good for our veterans. The monetary benefits for veterans are a plus. Basically, this legislation will amend title 38 to authorize the waiver of the collection of copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits of veterans by giving the Secretary the authority to do so. In closing, I must say it is an honor for me to serve as a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. I feel very privileged to be involved with policy formation that helps our veterans, and indeed to be at the same table as the distinguished chairman of the committee, a veteran of World War II himself, Senator Daniel Akaka, who throughout his service in Congress has been a true advocate for our veterans. I appreciate the guidance he has provided me, and the assistance his staff has provided mine in preparation of this legislation. This is a bipartisan bill to address an issue with no partisan connection. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join Senator Grassley and me in co-sponsoring this legislation, and I urge expeditious consideration of the legislation to address a growing need for our rural veterans.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I was not intending to speak because I was hopeful that tonight we would have a simple vote that would move us to debate on a bill that I think people have been waiting for, for a long time, and that is getting reform to our banking institutions and financial institutions. I will say for those who are watching and listening, I am new here. I have been here a little over a year, and I am trying to understand all of the process. But one thing I have learned is this great motion called a motion to proceed--a lot of people watch and see us vote and think, oh, the bill has gone down. This motion was a very simple motion. It allowed us to move to the bill so we can debate. What I have heard over the last several weeks and literally the last 48 hours is the desire for people to add amendments and talk about it and do all of the things we want to do and to have full debate on the floor. But because of this simple motion that the Senate requires, which I think is kind of a foolish motion-- that is my personal opinion--this motion to proceed, we are not even allowed now to debate this bill and offer amendments to this very important financial reform legislation. So I am disappointed. I am disappointed for us as a body that we can't move forward. Second, I think my constituents in Alaska are disappointed that we don't have an opportunity to debate this issue and throw amendments on the floor to refine a good piece of legislation and move us forward to getting reform in our financial institutions, especially these megabanks. Over the last year and a half since I have been here--almost a year and a half--all I have heard about is how bad this economy was a year or so ago and what caused it was the financial institutions just kind of crashing in because of the rules--or the lack of rules--under which they operated. The goal of the Senate is to try to create some rules, to make sure the public sees some transparency in these megabanks. Yet, for whatever reason, our friends on the other side are not willing to even move this forward. But I also learned today, just reading some of the material we get every single minute around this place, that they have been working on a bill for months. I don't know where they have been working on this bill because I sure as heck haven't seen it. The public hasn't seen it. I do know they have been having a lot of meetings up on Wall Street, and maybe that is where they are writing the bill. But I haven't seen this bill for 2, 3, 4, 5 months, whatever the timetable they claim they have been working on some legislation. That is what I read today. But the public hasn't seen it. The American people haven't seen it. And we actually had a chance tonight to vote to allow us to see it and have a debate, and they wouldn't allow that. So I am disappointed. I am disappointed that we don't have that opportunity. I am disappointed for the American people that we will not move forward on banking and financial reform, which is desperately needed. It is what crashed this economy, because of the lack of rules and the carelessness of so many with hard-earned dollars from working people across this country that they had put into banks and anticipated it would be put aside and protected and not put into some high-risk ventures that later on banks did and other megabanks did and caused this economy to be in the position it is in today. In Alaska, we have some great institutions. Our credit unions and our community banks did a great job. They were not investing in risky ventures. They were not investing in risky financial instruments with hard-earned dollars people put into those banks as investors or people deposited in those banks. The credit unions and these small community banks did a great job. This is our opportunity to not continue the status quo. It is clear to me that the other side is interested in the status quo, where billionaires became billionaires again by betting against the recovery of the economy, which is amazing, to me. They bet against the American people. They hoped they would be foreclosed on. Those are the rules the other side wants to continue. Now, maybe I am living in another world. I am betting on the American people. I am betting on Alaskans, that we want to move forward, not the status quo where this economy almost crashed and burned. At the same time, we want to make sure that banks in the future cannot be coming to the taxpayers and asking us for a bailout because that ain't happening, at least while I am here, anymore. It is outrageous that the taxpayers got left behind in this process. So, again, I am disappointed. It is amazing, as I said, that they are drafting some bill somewhere in some dark room somewhere. I don't know if it is in the Capitol or up on Wall Street. It is somewhat amazing to me, the people were complaining some time ago on some legislation they said we were drafting in the back room--which was not true--and now they are doing the exact same thing they complained about. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. So I was not planning to come down here and speak. I was voting like the rest of us, thinking we were going to move forward, and here we are: No bill to offer amendments, no bill to strengthen our financial position. Same old business as usual, status quo. The rich get richer. The people who are working hard every single day suffer, lost their 401(k)s or their education retirement accounts they set aside for their kids or thought they put them in a bank that was supposed to be secure, ended up who knows where, except in a few people's pockets who were working on Wall Street. So I am disappointed. I would hope our colleagues on the other side would allow us the opportunity to offer amendments to financial reform legislation that will, for once and for all, hold these financial institutions accountable for the actions they caused to this country that almost put us on the verge of bankruptcy. Thank you for the opportunity to vent, I guess would be my view right now, in aggravation of what is going on. But, again, it is our job to hold these financial institutions accountable for what they did to the taxpayers of this country. I hope our colleagues on the other side will see the light of day and join us to offer a debate.

Mr. BEGICH

Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I wish to recognize a fine Alaskan, brave warrior, dedicated military leader, and inspiration to all who know him. LTC Marc Hoffmeister is an Army engineer and wounded warrior currently serving on the staff of Alaska Command on Elmendorf AFB, AK. Lieutenant Colonel Hoffmeister may well be one of the most outstanding and motivational military leaders I have had the pleasure of knowing. Wounded by a roadside bomb while deployed to Iraq in 2007, he suffered both traumatic brain injury and a very serious physical injury to the left side of his body, injuries that threatened possible long- term disability and a possible end to his military career. Lieutenant Colonel Hoffmeister had long been committed to his career as well as a life focused on the outdoors. He and his wife Gayle had a long reputation of intense physical training and extreme outdoor adventure. Now he was facing the very real possibility of a life without either. Today Lieutenant Colonel Hoffmeister, through sheer determination, dedication, and the help of his wife Gayle, is still serving our country and still taking on the most extreme outdoor challenges. This fact did not happen overnight and came at a cost--a long stay in the hospital, intense rehabilitation, and much physiological effort to come to grips with a life that would be different but not debilitated. During his recovery Lieutenant Colonel Hoffmeister came in touch with scores of other wounded warriors all dealing with life-changing challenges and the need to rise above them and continue living. His ability to help these young warriors who had made selfless sacrifices in service to our country turned out to be a significant motivation for his own recovery. Recently Lieutenant Colonel Hoffmeister completed climbing the tallest mountain in North America. At 20,320 feet, Mount McKinley, Denali, is referred to as ``The Great One'' and is located about 150 miles north of Anchorage. On this climb, Lieutenant Colonel Hoffmeister took other wounded warriors, two of whom were amputees. Three members of this team, including Lieutenant Colonel Hoffmeister, made the summit. The climb, called Operation Denali, was planned and lead by Lieutenant Colonel Hoffmeister and was designed to show wounded warriors around the country their physical and mental injuries are not the end but rather a beginning of a new life. Marc and his wife recently went to South Africa and climbed Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania as another example of ``anything is possible,'' even in the face of extreme physical adversity. They both continue to be involved in the wounded warrior program and are routinely asked to provide motivational speeches to organizations around Alaska. Lieutenant Colonel Hoffmeister was recently chosen as the National Geographic Readers Choice Adventurer of the Year for 2009. Madam President and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the efforts of true warrior, hero, leader, and humanitarian, LTC Marc Hoffmeister, U.S. Army Alaska. We thank him for his dedication, drive, and selfless service both to his fellow wounded warriors as well as the United States of America.