Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. BAUCUS. How much does the Senator seek?

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I think it is important to lay a few facts on the table. The Senator from Oregon did a good job making this point clear, but I think, frankly, very few people in the country understand this point, this debate. To be honest, I think there are a good number of Members of the Senate who do not understand this point; the point being that under my amendment, for those individuals who earn $200,000 or less, their tax cut is permanent. Under that amendment, it is important to remind all of us that every individual will get a tax break regardless of their income; that is, every individual who has more than $200,000 of taxable income will receive a cut of at least $5,400. So if you are above $200,000, you still get a tax cut; you get a tax cut as an individual of about $5,400; and if you are a couple, it is probably close to double that. That is under my amendment. The same is also true under the Schumer amendment. Under the Schumer amendment, for those who make $1 million, their tax cut is going to be about $40,000. Even though the cutoff is $1 million, those who earn more than $1 million will get a tax cut. You get a tax cut under my amendment and you get a tax cut under the Schumer amendment. The tax cut you will receive under my amendment is about $5,400, if you make over $200,000; and the tax cut you will receive under the Schumer amendment, if you earn over $1 million, about $40,000. If you are a couple, it is probably almost double that, most likely. Add to that, in my amendment--and I think it is also in the Schumer amendment--the dividends rates are lower from ordinary income to 20 percent. So those folks who rely on dividends are going to get an additional tax break. So the point I am making very clearly is, everybody gets a tax cut under our amendments. It is not fair for the other side to characterize it that only some people are getting a tax cut. It is true those under $200,000 will get a bigger break on a percentage basis, but in dollar terms, they are going to get less of a break than those who earn $200,000 and above and under the Schumer amendment $1 million and above. The second point I wish to make is that we have to make choices. We often hear the expression: There is no free lunch. Nothing is free. Life is choices. We make choices in this Senate. Sometimes the choices we make are quite difficult, but they are also significant. I am a little bit bemused--I was bemused, and I still am bemused-- because I heard the Senator from South Carolina praise the President's deficit commission report, which recommends cutting the national deficit through various mechanisms, revenue increases, and spending cuts, cutting the national debt by about $4 trillion over 8, 9 years. The Senator was praising that. I say ``bemused'' because the basic view of the Senators on the other side is to increase the national debt by about $4 trillion; that is, the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky will, over the next 10 years, add $4 trillion to the deficit-- not subtracting $4 trillion from the deficit but adding $4 trillion to the deficit, for a swing of about $8 trillion over 8, 9, 10 years. That is fairly important. It is important because many commentators are concerned about the debt we have as a country. They point out the problems Greece has, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain. There are even articles that maybe countries in Europe should break away from the euro and have a separate currency. The main point is, we live in somewhat precarious times, and we have to not add to the deficit. The amendment I offer does add to the deficit, I might say, in all candor. It adds about $2 trillion over 10 years because we cut taxes in the manner in which I explained. The Schumer amendment adds a little bit more to the deficit. But that is only about $2 trillion, $2.3 trillion, $2.4 trillion; whereas, the other side would like to add $4 trillion. I am just saying, everybody gets a tax cut under the amendment I am offering, and those who make more than $200,000 get more in dollar terms than do people below $200,000. That is a statistical, mathematical fact. Again, it is about $5,400 for those whose income is $200,000 or above. Under the Schumer amendment, it is about $40,000 for those whose income is $1 million or above; whereas, those below that get a tax cut as well but not as many dollars. Just to remind everybody, we do have to make choices. We have to keep an eye on the debt. We should not increase the debt more. These various provisions do a bit. Let's not increase the debt more than we have to. I might add to that, too, and it is something I think we should be concerned with, over the last quarter century, the top 5 percent wealthiest Americans received an aftertax break of about 150 percent; that is, the aftertax income of the top 5 percent of the American people, over the last quarter of a century, grew by about 150 percent. Compare that with middle-income Americans. Over the last quarter century, the aftertax income of middle-income Americans grew only 28 percent. So it is a huge difference. So our policies cause those most wealthy to have much greater aftertax benefits than for middle-income Americans. Add it all together, I think it makes sense. We have to have balance. We have to make choices. Everybody gets a tax cut under our two amendments, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support the two amendments. I think it is not perfect, but it is a good, fair, balanced policy. It is the right thing to do. I yield the floor. Madam President, I ask that all time be yielded back on both sides and that we proceed to the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. He is not the majority leader, I might add.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there are several Senators who are prepared to speak this morning but would be unable to because of limited time. In order to accommodate them, I ask unanimous consent that the order of speakers on the Democratic side by the following: Senator Dorgan, 20 minutes; Senator Boxer, 10 minutes; Senator McCaskill, 10 minutes; and Senator Casey, 10 minutes. Further, if there is a Republican seeking recognition on the floor, that we alternate back and forth between the two sides.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for as much time as I consume.

Mr. BAUCUS. Sure.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the leader for all his very hard work. Nobody is working harder than the leader to try to work out the schedule so we can address these issues, and we all thank him.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the textbook definition of ``economics'' is about scarcity. For example, in his textbook ``Principles of Economics,'' President Bush's chief economic adviser, Gregory Mankiw, wrote this: Economics is the study of how society manages its scarce resources. We could say the same thing about fiscal policy. Fiscal policy is about how society, acting through its government, chooses to allocate scarce resources. There is not an endless supply of money. We have to make choices. Every time we put together a budget, we have to make choices. Every time we formulate the Nation's tax policy, we have to make choices. So when it comes to whether to extend the 2001 tax cuts, once again, we have to make choices. It is a question of priorities. The debate over what to do about the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for those with the highest incomes is a debate about priorities. Are we better off devoting scarce resources to a larger tax cut for those at the very top or are we better off devoting those scarce resources to new tax incentives to promote investment and create new jobs or are we better off devoting those scarce resources to reducing the Federal budget deficit and debt? Those are the choices we need to make. Today, the Senate is considering how we should make those choices. The amendment we have offered says basically: Let's make the middle- class tax cuts permanent. That is something on which pretty much everyone in this Chamber should agree. After we have cut taxes for middle-class Americans, then let's have an honest debate. Let's debate whether extending tax cuts for the very top incomes is the right priority. But, in any case, making middle-class tax cuts permanent is the right thing to do. Let's not allow tax cuts for middle-class Americans to be held hostage to partisan wrangling about tax cuts for those who make the very most. So how did we come to this choice? Let me take a few moments to review how we got here. In 2001, Congress enacted legislation to let American families keep more of their money. Many of these tax incentives were phased in over several years. In 2003, Congress enacted legislation adding new tax incentives and speeding up implementation of the 2001 law. The 2001 and 2003 tax laws lowered tax rates for all taxpayers, and those laws provided much needed tax relief for families, education, and small business. Many of these tax provisions have broad support across the political spectrum. But these tax benefits are not permanent. Beginning on January 1, all these 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, even those for Americans who need them the most. At the same time, the Federal debt is at its highest level since shortly after World War II, and our fiscal challenges are growing with the retirement of the baby boom generation. The amendment we consider today responds to both these challenges. So what would our amendment do? First, our amendment would extend tax cuts for middle-class American families. Our amendment would permanently extend the lower tax rates for income up to $250,000 for married couples and $200,000 for individuals. Extending these lower tax rates would benefit all taxpayers--all taxpayers--including higher income taxpayers. In fact, higher income taxpayers would receive the largest tax benefits in terms of dollars per taxpayer. That is, of course, because we have our marginal tax rate system in America. So making the tax cut permanent for all taxes of Americans below $250,000 will benefit all Americans--not only those below $250,000, but those above $250,000, will, under this amendment, get a benefit. As I said, in fact, higher income taxpayers receive the largest tax benefits in terms of dollars per taxpayer, even under the $250,000 amendment. Our amendment would make permanent the provisions that help working families with children. The number of people living in poverty is at a 15-year high. One out of every five American children lives in poverty. Many of these provisions in our amendment would help keep children and their families out of poverty. The amendment would make permanent the expanded earned-income tax credit for families with three or more children. The increased tax credit provides more help to families with children. The partially refundable portion of the credit allows families to receive a benefit even when their tax liability is low, as long as the family has earned income of more than $3,000. This credit helps to support 13 million children in low-income working families every year. These families are likely to spend every dollar they receive right away. That means this provision would also help the economy. The increased dependent care credit recognizes the increased cost of childcare for working families. People should be able to go to work and have the quality care they need for their children. In 2008, the dependent care credit helped more than 6.5 million working families to make ends meet. Our amendment would make permanent a tax benefit for employers who construct, build or expand property used as a childcare facility. This benefit recognizes the contribution that some employers make to help their employees balance child-raising and a career. The amendment would provide permanent marriage penalty relief. That way, married couples would not get higher taxes as an added wedding present. The amendment would direct that certain government programs disregard refundable tax credits when determining eligibility for the programs. This would ensure that America's most in need would not be worse off because of tax incentives. We don't want to give with one hand and take away with the other. Our amendment also addresses the importance of getting a quality education and the increased cost of getting an education. Our amendment would make it easier to deduct student loan interest, to eliminate the restriction on the number of months eligible for the deduction, and it would expand the eligibility to more postgraduates. Our amendment would make permanent the American opportunity tax credit. This would help students to afford a higher education. This provision is a partially refundable tax credit up to $2,500 of the cost of tuition and fees, including books. The amendment includes an income exclusion for loan repayment for programs where a postgraduate becomes a health professional in an underserved area. The amendment would include continuing education for workers by allowing an exclusion from income for employer-provided educational assistance programs. What do we do about capital gains and dividends? Right now, capital gains are currently taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent and dividends are treated as capital gains. This treatment expires at the end of this year. Starting January 1, unless we act, capital gains will be taxed at 20 percent and dividends will be treated as ordinary income. Our amendment would make permanent the current capital gains rate for taxpayers with incomes up to $250,000 for married couples and up to $200,000 for individuals. The amendment continues to treat dividends as capital gains for all taxpayers, so dividends would not be treated as ordinary income for any taxpayer. This would level the playing field. This would ensure that the Tax Code will not favor one type of investment over the other. What do we do about the alternative minimum tax? Our amendment would provide 2 years of relief from the AMT. Every year, we talk about the AMT and how it ensnares hard-working Americans. Originally, Congress created the AMT to stop--get this--just 155 millionaires from completely avoiding income taxes. That was the point of the AMT. It was an attempt to make sure all taxpayers paid their fair share. What about today? Now, millions of hard-working families are subject to this dreadful tax--not 155 millionaires but millions of people--families who are working hard, raising children, and find themselves hit with increased taxes. We are not talking about millionaires; we are talking about a larger group of Americans. AMT has this effect because it was not indexed. To keep the number of taxpayers subject to this tax from growing, Congress has to pass an AMT patch every year. Without an AMT fix, the number of taxpayers subject to the tax would explode. In Montana, Congress's failure to enact a patch would mean that more than six times as many taxpayers would have that burden. Our amendment would take care of the AMT for 2010 and 2011. During that time, Congress can deal with this stealth tax once and for all as part of tax reform. What about small business? Our amendment would benefit small business owners by making permanent the 2007 expansion of section 179 expensing. What about the estate tax? Our amendment would provide permanent estate tax relief for family-owned businesses. In 2001, Congress voted to provide estate tax relief to American families. We decreased the rate and increased the exemption over time, until we had complete repeal for 2010 only. That is what we have today, in 2010. Next year, if we don't act, the law will snap back up to the old 2001 rate. This has resulted in uncertainty and a planning nightmare for families. Our amendment would eliminate that uncertainty. The amendment would make permanent 2009 estate tax law going forward. It would set the top tax rate at 45 percent and the exemption at $3.5 million per person, which obviously amounts to $7 million per couple. The amendment includes an election for estates that arose between January 1 and the law's enactment. The heirs would be able to choose either current law or the new permanent tax rate and exemption. Our amendment would provide an exemption for family ranches and farms. This provision would ensure that no family farm or ranch ever has to be sold to pay estate taxes. Our amendment would simplify planning for spouses. Most people believe that a couple automatically receives double the exemption amount. So if an exemption is $3.5 million, most folks assume that a couple gets $7 million. But what many people don't know is that to get the full $7 million exemption, couples have to plan. Our amendment would simplify planning for spouses by allowing the transfer of any unused exemption between spouses. This would make the law work the way most people think it works already. The resulting estate tax law would provide certainty to taxpayers, and the remaining estate tax would affect only the heirs of the very largest estates. It would ensure that the small number of people who inherit so much money that they never have to work during their life would contribute their fair share. What about the provision that folks call tax extenders? Our amendment would extend a number of other tax provisions important to individuals, businesses, and State and local governments. These provisions will continue to help create jobs and pay taxes. Our amendment would create jobs by improving our Nation's infrastructure. It would reduce the cost to local governments to build roads, bridges, and water treatment facilities. The amendment would extend multiple incentives that promote energy sustainability and efficiency. The amendment would extend the dollar-per-gallon credit for biodiesel and renewable diesel, and the amendment would extend the manufacturer's credit for the construction of new energy-efficient homes. The amendment includes a credit for energy-efficient appliances and a credit for alternative-fuel motor vehicles. The amendment includes an extension of the advanced energy investment credit for businesses engaged in the manufacturing of technologies for the production of renewable energy and energy storage, and the amendment provides parity for transit benefits so that employers can provide tax-free benefits to their employees for both transit and parking. Our amendment would extend a number of tax cuts for individuals, including an extension of the making work pay credit--very stimulative. It helps the economy dramatically, and if it is not in here, it will be destimulative and hurt the economy. Our amendment would help teachers by extending the expense deduction for teachers who buy school supplies for their classrooms. The amendment would extend the additional standard deduction for State and local real estate taxes as well as the ability of itemizers to deduct sales taxes in lieu of State and local income taxes. Our amendment would extend the qualified tuition deduction to help with college costs. This amendment would extend much needed relief for communities that have suffered from natural disasters. Our amendment would extend important business tax provisions to help create jobs and make our companies competitive in a global economy. The amendment would extend the research and development credit to help American businesses keep on the cutting edge. Our amendment also includes a provision that will help small businesses across our country. The provision would repeal an expansion of information reporting rules that was enacted this past year, otherwise known as 1099. Those rules expanded current information reporting requirements to include payments businesses make to corporations and payments for goods and property, not just services. This provision, known as the 1099 provision, imposes a record-keeping burden on small businesses that would take away from the time business owners need to expand their business and create jobs. This information reporting went too far, especially in this difficult economy. It is important that we repeal this expansion of information reporting. Now, some will say that we should extend tax cuts for everyone, even the very rich. America is working through tough economic times. At the same time, our country has record deficits. Our amendment would balance these two concerns. Our amendment would extend all the tax cuts affecting middle and lower income Americans that Congress enacted in 2001 and in 2003 that sunset this year. Our amendment would also extend several expiring tax cuts benefiting middle and lower income Americans that Congress enacted in 2009. Our amendment would protect Americans who have been struggling to get by. Our amendment would also benefit taxpayers with higher incomes. The cuts in our amendment apply to all of the income up to $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples even if the taxpayer makes more than that. At the same time, we crafted our amendment with recognition of the mounting deficits our country faces. Our amendment would not rely on the gimmick of temporarily extending tax cuts in order to mask their size, knowing that future Congresses will be unable to resist the temptation to keep extending these cuts. It is about priorities. Our amendment makes choices. Our amendment would not make permanent all of the expiring tax cuts that Congress enacted in 2009. It would not make permanent tax cuts that benefit only those Americans who need them the least. Only 3 percent of Americans have incomes greater than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for individuals. Over the past quarter century, the average after-tax income of the wealthiest 5 percent has grown 150 percent. At the same time in the past quarter century, the average after-tax income of middle-class Americans has grown by only 28 percent. So 150 percent for the top 5 percent--the wealthiest--and only 28 percent for middle-income Americans. Today, the bottom 80 percent of households receive less than half of all after-tax income. The benefits of recent economic growth have not been widely shared, so the middle class should not be asked to tighten their belts as much as the high-income folks who have benefited the most. As we come out of the great recession, we need to recognize the growing Federal budget deficit. In 2010, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. That is the second highest level relative to the size of the economy since 1945. This was exceeded only by 2009's $1.4 trillion deficit-- $100 billion more--and the Congressional Budget Office projects that deficits will remain high for the rest of the decade. That means the Federal debt will keep growing. When we passed the 2001 tax cuts, the Federal Government was running a surplus. When we passed the 2001 tax cuts, economists projected big surpluses as far as the eye could see. Times have changed. We need to consider our current fiscal condition. With 15 million Americans still out of work, it is important that we keep our economy on the path to recovery by extending tax cuts for families who need them the most and who will spend it. Our amendment strikes the right balance. It is a question of priorities. Our amendment says that we should not devote scarce resources to a larger tax cut for those at the very top. Our amendment says that we would be better off devoting those scarce resources to new tax incentives that promote investment and create new jobs or we would be better off devoting those scarce resources to reducing the Federal budget deficit and debt. Those are the choices we have to make. Our amendment says: Let's make the middle-class tax cuts permanent. Our amendment says: Let's not allow tax cuts for middle-class Americans to be held hostage for tax cuts for those who make the very most. There is not an endless supply of money. We have to make choices. I submit that these are the choices we need to make. I encourage my colleagues to support our amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suspend my request.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff be allowed floor privileges during the consideration of the tax bill: Mary Baker, Danielle Dellerson, Andrew Fishburn, William Kellogg, Nicole Lemire, Deborah Ma, Nicole Marchman, John Merrick, Kane Ossorio, Manishi Rodrigo, and Greg Sullivan.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, without congressional action, hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose their unemployment benefits. Earlier this week, along with 19 of my colleagues, I introduced the Unemployment Insurance Stabilization Act of 2010--the USA bill. Our bill would reauthorize the Federal unemployment benefits program. Unemployment benefits are the only lifeline that many workers in Montana and across the nation have left in this tough economy. These benefits help millions of Americans to put food on the table and roofs over their heads. These benefits pump money into our economy and help to create jobs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that unemployment benefits have one of the largest effects on economic output and employment per dollar spent of any policy. This Congress has spent a lot of time reauthorizing unemployment benefits for a few months at a time. This bill would reauthorize the program for a full year. A longer reauthorization of the unemployment benefits program would provide certainty. It would provide certainty for our economy. And it would provide the certainty that Americans looking for work need. This bill would fund unemployment insurance for people who have lost their jobs in the latter portion of the recession. This bill would not provide anyone with more than 99 weeks of benefits. This bill would ensure that out-of-work Americans who lost their jobs recently would get benefits similar to those received by their neighbors who lost their jobs earlier in the recession. The Department of Labor reports that for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, two dollars are reinvested in the economy. This bill is crucial to our economy. This bill is about jobs. This bill is about jobs because unemployment insurance goes to people who will spend it immediately. That increases economic demand. And that helps to support our fragile economic recovery. CBO says that aid to the unemployed is among the policies best suited to creating jobs per dollar of budgetary cost. With unemployment at 9.6 percent, now is not the time to stop investing in economic recovery. This bill would keep in place a major source of our recovery. This bill would support Americans who have worked, are looking for work, and will work again. For millions of people, unemployment insurance is the bridge to the next job. This bill would provide a bridge over troubled waters. I think of a woman from Helena, MT, who called my office. She told us that unemployment benefits are keeping her family afloat. She was laid off when she was 8 months pregnant. And she wants the Senate to know that she has worked since she was a teenager. She wants to work. And she will work again. And I think of a Montana father with three small children who was laid off after 18 years of service. The company could no longer pay his wages. He has no income. But he continues to look for work. His home is going into foreclosure. Unemployment insurance has been his only income. It is what puts food on the table for his family. This is America. When there is an emergency, we don't leave people behind. We cannot take Federal unemployment insurance benefits away before our economy and out-of-work Americans have found their footing. Let's not leave the unemployed behind. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. It is a rare day in the Congress that we have an opportunity like this to end, once and for all, decades-old injustices and water related claims against the government so that we can move forward together. I am proud that the House of Representatives passed the Claims Resolution Act, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent on Friday, November 19. The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 includes the Cobell settlement, which settles claims resulting from mismanagement of trust accounts of close to 300,000 American Indians. It includes the Pigford settlement, which settles discrimination claims by black farmers against the USDA. It settles water related claims of tribes in Arizona, New Mexico, and Montana. The bill is fully offset. Each settlement in this package has its own history--each compelling in its own regard--that has brought us to this day of resolution. I want to focus in particular on the Cobell settlement and the Crow Water Compact, which are both so important to Montana. Tribal members comprise over 6 percent of Montana'spopulation. American Indians live in every county in Montana, and our State has several counties where more than half of the population is comprised of tribal members. Nine percent of Montana's land base is located within the boundaries of our State's seven Indian Reservations. The Cobell settlement resolves the class-action lawsuit brought by Native American representatives and lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe in northwestern Montana, against the U.S. Government. This case dealt with the mismanagement of Indian trust assets by the U.S. Government. In 1887 the Federal Government allotted tribal lands to individual Indians in parcels between 40 and 160 acres. The Department of Interior was supposed to hold these parcels in trust for a period of 25 years and then turn them over to the individual Indians. The Department of Interior has held these allotments in trust until the present day. During the 123 years since 1887, these lands have become highly fractionated as successive generations of Indian owners bequeathed the land to their children. Today the Department of the Interior holds about 56 million acres of land in trust for individual Indians. These 56 million acres generate approximately $357 million annually in coal sales, timber sales, oil and gas leases, and grazing leases. This $357 million is supposed to be dispersed to the over 230,000 Indians who have an interest in various parcels. In the Cobell case, the plaintiffs sought a historical accounting of what individuals were owed and the Department of Interior contended that it could not provide such an accounting. This case has been going on for 14 years, leaving the plaintiffs without resolution of their claims and diverting attention and resources away from other projects in Indian Country. On December 8, 2009, Secretary Salazar and the plaintiffs agreed to a $3.4 billion settlement. It is a testament to both sides in this litigation that a fair agreement has been reached. The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 provides the funding needed to implement this settlement. I am proud of the diligence and focus with which Eloise Cobell pursued justice in this case. I am proud that she is a Montanan, proud of the result, and proud of the Congress for doing the right thing. I am just as proud of the action we took with regard to the Crow Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010. The Crow Tribe has a membership of approximately 12,000 people. About 7,900 reside on the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana. It is the largest of Montana's seven reservations, comprising approximately 2.3 million acres. The current reservation was established by the Treaty of Fort Laramie with the United States dated May 7, 1868. At the time of its establishment, the reservation comprised nearly 5.9 million acres in both Wyoming and Montana. However, over time the reservation was reduced by nearly 3.6 million acres. The last cession of Crow land, in 1904, included what came to be known as the Ceded Strip, 1 million acres on the north side of the reservation. There are a number of large streams that flow through the Crow Indian Reservation, including the Bighorn River and its tributaries, one of which is the Little Bighorn River. Another significant stream on the western portion of the Crow Indian Reservation is Pryor Creek and its tributaries. The Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010 ratifies the Crow- Montana Water Rights Compact, which was adopted by the Montana State Legislature in 1999. It establishes tribal water rights and settles claims against the government. The bill provides for funding that will be used to more fully develop tribal water resources. This water compact was endorsed by the administration--one of the first to receive this level of consensus and support. I commend the tribe and the administration, particularly Chairman Cedric Black Eagle and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Mike Connor, and their respective teams for their hard work on this. I also want to thank the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Barasso, for their work reaching consensus. Finally, I want to thank my colleague from Montana, Senator Jon Tester, who has worked so hard to push this through the Senate. This was truly a bi-partisan effort with cooperation here in the Senate from Senator Bingaman, Senator Kyl, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Grassley, all of whom worked together and compromised so that we could come together today and do the right thing. With the House passage of this bill, we are settling decades-old injustices and claims against the government. We are bringing our Nation closer together. I am proud to stand here today, having been a part of making this happen, and I look forward to the day that we see President Obama's signature on this bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff be allowed floor privileges during consideration of the food safety bill: James Baker, Mary Baker, Will Kellogg, Nicole Lemire, Deborah Ma, Brychan Manry, Nicole Marchman, Jack McGillis, Kane Ossorio, and Lisa Yen.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, at 6:30 this evening, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment to the food safety bill. Under a previous order, once cloture is invoked, there was to be up to 60 minutes of debate on competing motions to suspend rule XXII offered by Senator Johanns and myself. I understand that the two leaders intend to propound an agreement that would provide for the Senate to vote on our two motions immediately after the cloture vote this evening. So Senators should be on notice that there may be three back-to-back votes beginning at 6:30. The Senator from Nebraska and I share a common goal. We both want to repeal some IRS reporting requirements scheduled to take effect in the year 2012. Each of our two motions would allow consideration of an amendment to prevent the expansion of those IRS reporting rules. Thus, each of our two amendments would help small businesses across America. How? By repealing these burdensome paperwork requirements. But there are two big differences between our two amendments. First, my alternative is especially friendly to small businesses. It takes extra measures to permit the IRS to waive certain duplicative reporting requirements that small businesses now must experience; that is, the small businesses that use credit cards to pay their bills. My alternative goes further and gives more relief to small businesses. Second, our two versions differ as far as paying for the change. The alternative offered by my colleague from Nebraska would give the unelected Director of OMB unprecedented authority to slash spending all on his own. The Johanns alternative would thus abdicate Congress's responsibility over the budget. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Johanns amendment and support my alternative. First, let me talk about what we have in common. Each of our two amendments is designed to get rid of a set of rules that requires reporting to the IRS. Many have referred to these rules as the ``1099 provision.'' That is because these new rules would require filing more IRS forms numbered 1099. These rules would impose new paperwork burdens and costs on small businesses, and these burdens would fall on small businesses just as they are struggling to emerge from the great recession. The new rules expand existing information reporting to the IRS to include payments that businesses make to corporations and payments they make for goods and property. As I travel around my home State of Montana, I listen to small business owners such as Darrell Keck. Darrell owns the Dixie Inn in Shelby, MT. Darrell and his wife Jeanne run a tight ship. They are hard working. They pay their taxes. Darrell told me that he and his wife just do not have the manpower or the software to make the new reporting rules work. And Darrell and his wife Jeanne run just one business of the many mom-and-pop businesses in Montana that have told me this. I daresay most of the Members of this body hear the same things I hear as they travel. I have listened to small businesses. I have heard them. I am responding to small businesses by offering this amendment. My amendment would fully repeal the new reporting requirements--fully. My amendment also responds to the concerns of owners of rental property. Some of these owners were concerned about their ability to comply with new rental expense information reporting rules included in the small business bill which Congress enacted just this last September. My amendment would scale back those rules. My amendment would apply the same rules to rental expense reporting as would apply to all businesses. Now let me turn to the differences between my amendment and the Johanns amendment. First, my amendment includes another feature that would further reduce the paperwork burdens on small businesses. My amendment would grant the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue regulations to avoid duplicative reporting. The Treasury has issued guidance under similar authority to allow small businesses that use credit cards to forgo reporting expenses they pay with their credit cards. Under this new guidance, to the extent small businesses use their credit cards to pay service vendors, they would actually have even less compliance burden than they did under the old law; that is, before the new requirement. The competing amendment offered by my colleague from Nebraska would repeal the Treasury's authority to make rules to avoid duplicative reporting. It would repeal it. Doing so would thus risk placing undue and unnecessary paperwork burdens on small businesses that use credit cards to pay their bills. So my alternative is especially friendly to small businesses. It takes extra measures to permit the IRS to waive duplicative reporting, especially those requirements for small businesses that use credit cards. The second main difference between our two amendments is the offset in the Johanns amendment--and this is a big one. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that the tax law changes in the Johanns amendment would cost about $22 billion. The Johanns amendment also includes a cut of $39 billion in appropriated funds, to be determined by the Office of Management and Budget. The Johanns amendment cuts about twice what it needs to do to pay for the repeal of the reporting requirements. As a matter of dollars and cents, the Johanns amendment is mostly about cutting appropriated spending. That is what it really is. So it is not about repealing the reporting requirement. To make these spending cuts, the Johanns amendment would give the unelected Director of OMB unprecedented authority to determine the source of this funding, and that would abdicate congressional responsibility over the budget. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that my amendment would cost about $19 billion. That is a little less than the tax part of the Johanns amendment. But my amendment does not include an offset. These days, finding a $19 billion offset that can get 67 votes is pretty close to impossible. We have spent much of this year haggling over one offset or another. My amendment tries to avoid that. We are talking about a paperwork requirement that has not yet even taken effect and, in fact, will not take effect, if not repealed, until the year 2012. Let's just repeal this reporting requirement. Let's just get it done. Let's just repeal it lock, stock, and barrel. Let's just get it done and not do all of these extra, other things which really are not good policy. The IRS has used form 1099 for decades to better track income, but the new reporting rules just went too far. The time that it spends for small businesses to comply with the new rules far exceeds any benefit. Especially in these tough economic times, now is not the time to put additional stress on small businesses to meet complicated government rules. Rather, now is the time to eliminate this paperwork burden. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. That is especially true in Montana. In Montana, a greater share of workers work in small businesses than in any other State in the country--a greater proportion than in any other State in the country. Business owners need to focus their efforts on growing their businesses and creating jobs, not filling out paperwork. Small businesses in Montana and across America want to comply with tax laws, but these new rules stretch their ability to do that. It just went too far. I urge my colleagues to support their full repeal. But let's not hand over a blank check to the OMB Director to slash $39 billion wherever he wants. That part of the Johanns amendment also goes too far. So I urge my colleagues to help small businesses. I urge my colleagues to avoid sweeping delegations of power to an unelected OMB Director. Thus, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Johanns amendment and support the Baucus amendment when it comes up for a vote this evening. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request which I understand has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the agreement with respect to S. 510 be modified as follows: That after the cloture vote at 6:30 p.m. today, and if cloture is invoked, then all debate time with respect to the Johanns and Baucus motions be considered expired; Senator Johanns be recognized to offer his motion to suspend; that once the motion has been made, Senator Baucus then be recognized to offer his motion to suspend; that once made, the Senate then proceed to vote with respect to the Johanns amendment to suspend; that upon disposition of that motion, the Senate then proceed to vote with respect to the Baucus motion to suspend; that upon disposition of those two motions, Senator Coburn then be recognized as provided for under the order of November 18 and 19; that all debate time with respect to the Coburn motion be utilized during today's session; that at 9 a.m. Tuesday, November 30, after the prayer and the pledge and any leader time, the Senate then resume consideration of S. 510 with 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled between Senators Coburn and Inouye, prior to the vote in relation to the Coburn motion regarding earmarks, No. 4697; that upon disposition of that motion, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that the Senate then proceed to vote with respect to the Coburn motion regarding the substitute amendment No. 4696; further, that any other provisions of the previous order remain in effect; provided further that prior to passage of the bill, the Budget Committee pay-go statement be read into the record; further, that after the first vote today and tomorrow, the succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes each; and that prior to the succeeding votes tonight, there be 2 minutes equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, may I further amend that request to provide that after the swearing in of Senator-elect Kirk, the time be equally divided until 6:30 p.m. this evening, and that the Senator from Oklahoma be recognized to speak for 15 minutes, and the time to be divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. BAUCUS. Before.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, pursuant to the previous order, I move to suspend the rules for the consideration of my amendment, which is at the desk, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I understand, under the order, each side gets to speak for 1 minute.