Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said: The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. This statement is all too true, as we are faced with the Supreme Court's disappointing decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission earlier this year. In a 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court overturned years of congressional work to limit corporate spending and corruption in the political arena. As a result, corporations and labor unions are now free to spend unlimited dollars from their general funds to make independent expenditures at any time during an election cycle, including directly calling for the election or defeat of a candidate. This ruling will have far-reaching implications for the electoral system on a Federal, State, and local level. In his well-reasoned dissent, Justice Stevens noted: Lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races. Over the years, Congress and State legislatures have done just that. In 2002, Congress found that without regulation, corporations spend money on political elections in extremely large amounts. Spending at those levels created a corrupting influence on legislative actions. In response to what Justice Stevens called a ``virtual mountain of research'' on the potential for corruption within the election process, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as McCain-Feingold. With an eye on prior Supreme Court rulings, Congress shaped McCain-Feingold to properly address concerns over evidence of corruption in the electoral system. The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United is bad for my State of Montana, it is bad for America. Montana history shows that corporations are eager to influence elections. As Montana attorney general Steve Bullock previously testified, during the turn of the century, wealthy copper kings of Montana's mining industry leveraged their corporate power to effectively buy elections. In 1912, Montana voters spoke out, passing some of the strongest laws in the Nation prohibiting corporations from acting to influence Montana elections. The law has withstood the test of 98 years without failing. Yet, because of Citizens United, Montana's strong campaign finance laws are now also in jeopardy. In Montana, the ruling is likely to have a significant impact on State and local elections. The use of corporate money will drown out the voices of individual Montanans. The cost of advertising in Montana is very low. This, however, will make it easy for large out-of-State corporations to dominate Montana markets in an effort to sway Montana races. When it comes to corporate spending, we are talking about a significant amount of money. Let's look at what corporate America is spending on political advertising. In 2008, the automotive industry spent over $30 billion in advertising. Just in the first quarter of this year, Wall Street firms spent $2 billion. The tobacco industry averages $12 billion in advertising nationwide each year. That is political advertising. When you start adding up these numbers, you start to get a sense of the magnitude of the impact Citizens United can have on our electoral process. Corporations will now have free rein to spend this kind of money to now call for the election or opposition of specific candidates, Federal, State, or local. The impact of Citizens United goes well beyond merely changing campaign finance law. This decision will impact the ability of Congress, as well as State and local legislatures, to pass laws designed to protect its constituents--individual Americans--when such legislation comes under fierce objection by large corporations. Corporations are now free to spend millions targeting individual lawmakers. Lawmakers' ability to pass laws such as consumer safety or investor protection now faces even greater challenges when such laws merely threaten the corporate bottom line. Congress and the American people must respond swiftly and firmly. The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United has severely altered Congress's ability to limit corporate spending in our electoral process. I support legislative efforts such as those to enhance disclosure and increase shareholder say on corporate campaign spending, and I commend my friend from New York, Senator Schumer, for his efforts on this front. However, it is clear that the surest way to address the Supreme Court's disappointing decisions is a constitutional amendment that will clarify Congress's authority to regulate corporate political spending. The resolution I am introducing today proposes a constitutional amendment that will restore Congress's authority to regulate political expenditures by corporations and labor organizations in support or in opposition to Federal candidates. It also preserves Congress's ability to regulate political contributions to these candidates. Similarly, this amendment provides States with the authority to regulate political contributions and expenditures in a way that works best for each State. This amendment does not modify the first amendment at all, and the language specifies that this does not affect freedom of the press in any way. The Framers provided a series of steps required to amend the Constitution, and this process should not be taken lightly. This resolution requires the support of a two-thirds majority of the Senate and the House and subsequent ratification by three-quarters of the States. I recognize the challenges of that process, but I believe this is a discussion and debate that Congress and the American people should have. We must act. We must act now to restore Americans' faith in our political electoral process. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we are going to vote momentarily. In the meantime, I thank the Senator from California for her steadfast support to the cause of justice and for supporting this resolution and taking up the cause of Aung San Suu Kyi. I don't know of anybody else in this body--and Senator McConnell has been forthright in his support, but I want people to know how strongly the Senator from California has been an advocate for Aung San Suu Kyi, and I deeply appreciate it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back, both minority and majority.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the joint resolution.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, today the Senate considers extension of economic sanctions against the Burmese regime. The Senate should pass this resolution. Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and democracy leader in Burma, said ``the people in Burma are like prisoners in their own country.'' Dr. Suu Kyi, herself, remains, quite literally, a prisoner. The Burmese regime has kept her under house arrest on trumped up charges for 14 of the last 20 years. She persists in her dream of freedom and democracy for Burma. By extending economic sanctions against the Burmese regime, we hope to make that dream a reality. The Burmese regime seems intent on keeping its people in chains. According to the State Department, the regime continues to conscript children into the military and engage them in forced labor. It continues to violate freedoms of expression, assembly, association, movement, and religion. It continues to use murder, abduction, rape, and torture against its opponents. I have often questioned whether unilateral trade sanctions are the best path. But several trading partners--including the European Union, Canada, and Australia--have joined us in imposing sanctions against Burma. The State Department has found that these sanctions have made it more difficult and costly for the Burmese regime to profit from imprisoning its people. Let us stand with the Burmese people. Let us seek to free them from their captivity, and let us renew these sanctions. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield such time as the Senator from California may use.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, at 2:30 this afternoon, the Senate will vote again on unemployment insurance. This bill is about jobs. This bill is about compassion. This bill would extend unemployment insurance for people who have lost their jobs. This bill is about jobs because unemployment insurance goes to people who spend it immediately. That would increase economic demand, and that would help support our fragile economic recovery. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that additional unemployment benefits would have one of the largest effects on economic output and employment per dollar spent compared with any other policy. A fancy term is the ``multiplier effect.'' Dollars spent on unemployment benefits have a much greater effect on the economy, a bigger bang for the buck than almost any other dollar expended by the Federal Government. It stimulates the economy. Unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, and clearly it helps the people who have lost their jobs. Of the 11 policies CBO analyzed, the Congressional Budget Office ranked increasing aid to the unemployed first. It is No. 1. CBO says it will create the most jobs per dollar of budgetary cost. As I mentioned, this vote is really about compassion. As of this week, more than 2.5 million out-of-work Americans have stopped receiving unemployment insurance benefits because Congress has failed to enact this bill. That is more than 2.5 million people who are not getting a paycheck to pay the bills. That is more than 2.5 million Americans who are not getting any help from unemployment insurance to tide them over. These 2.5 million Americans are trying to get work. But there are still five people looking for work for every job opening-- five looking for every job available. They need to get help until they can find that job. A woman from Helena, MT--the town I was born in--called my office and told us that unemployment benefits are keeping her family afloat. She was laid off when she was 8 months pregnant. She wants the Senate to know she has worked since she was a teenager. She wants to work. And she will work again. For these 2.5 million Americans, this bill is about the roof over their heads. For these 2.5 million Americans, this bill is about keeping the electricity on. For these 2.5 million Americans, this bill is about food on the table. It is that simple. It is that important. A Montana father with three small children was laid off after 18 years of service because the company could no longer pay his wages. Now 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 in America do not leave people behind. Let's not leave the unemployed behind. We have stripped this measure down to the bare essentials. We simply must pass this bill. This afternoon, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and move this important bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this week the Senate also returns to the small business jobs bill. Small businesses are central to our efforts to create jobs. Unemployment insurance helps people who are out of work. We want to help create the jobs so people can get the work. Small businesses employ half of America's private sector workforce. In my home State of Montana, small businesses employ more than 90 percent of all private sector employees. Over the past 15 years, small businesses have created two-thirds of Americans' new jobs. That is about 12 million new jobs. Historically, during recessions, small businesses bear the brunt of employment losses. The great recession has been no exception. Over the course of the great recession, small firms have accounted for between 64 percent and 80 percent of net job losses. Plainly, to create jobs, we need to find ways to help small businesses. Small businesses continue to face significant obstacles to expanding and hiring. One of the biggest obstacles is getting capital. A recent study by the National Federation of Independent Business found that only half of small businesses trying to borrow are able to get the capital they need. Nearly a quarter are not able to get any credit at all. Compare that to 2005. Five years ago, 90 percent of small businesses were able to get the capital they needed, and only 8 percent were not able to get any credit at all--a big change. Small business lending has dropped. From the second quarter of 2008 to the third quarter of 2009, small business borrowing fell by more than $20 billion. A number of factors have contributed to this decline. Banks have tightened lending standards and terms for new credit. Banks have reduced risky assets to improve their capital positions. Falling real estate values have limited the ability of small business owners to use their own assets to guarantee or collateralize loans. And credit card terms have also worsened. Over the course of the great recession, small businesses in my home State of Montana have faced many of these obstacles. For example, Grains of Montana--that is a restaurant and bakery based in Billings-- had trouble finalizing the terms of its SBA loan. This delayed the expansion of their bakery. And when a potential franchisee in Arizona was unable to secure funding, the deal fell through. Companies such as Grains of Montana need to get capital to grow and to hire new employees. We must act to get credit flowing. We must increase access to capital so small employers can begin hiring again. That is exactly what the small business jobs bill would do. The small business jobs bill includes a provision that would completely eliminate the tax on the sale of certain small business stock purchased from the date of this bill's enactment through to the end of 2010 and held for 5 years. This proposal would provide a powerful incentive to invest in small entrepreneurial firms right now. The bill also includes a provision for certain small businesses that expands the carryback period for general business credits determined this year from 1 year to 5 years, and our bill allows these general business credits against the alternative minimum tax. Another provision would temporarily shorten the holding period required after a C corporation converts to an S corporation in order to avoid triggering a gain on assets. This provision would allow small businesses to increase their liquidity by selling assets that would otherwise be subject to an additional layer of tax. All of these provisions free up business capital for expansion and job growth. In past recessions, small firms were the first to begin hiring again. We must ensure that this trend continues as we recover from the great recession. We can achieve this by helping small businesses get the capital they need. I urge my colleagues to support the small business jobs bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my staff be given floor privileges during the consideration of the small business jobs bill: Jamie Bedwell, Drew Colling, Emily Freeman, Chris Goble, Michael Grant, Nicole Marchman, Lindsay Novis, and Jim Zadick.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I recognize the exemplary work of Allen Smith, Jr., of Helena, MT. This week, Al will be awarded the American Association for Justice Partnership Award in recognition for his work as the executive director of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association. I commend Al for all his work on behalf of the justice system and Montana's strong network of legal advocates. The mission of the American Association of Justice is ``to promote a fair and effective justice system--and to support the work of attorneys in their efforts to ensure that any person who is injured by the misconduct or negligence of others can obtain justice in America's courtrooms, even when taking on the most powerful interests.'' I can think of no one that reflects this mission more than Al Smith. Since joining the team at the Montana Trial Lawyers Association in 1997, Al has shown a commitment to promoting justice and fairness in our country's legal system. His desire to serve MTLA comes from his respect for its members who, each day, work for justice by holding governments, corporations, and other powers accountable to individuals. As MTLA president Sydney McKenna wrote last year, ``[Al] articulate[s] in a compelling way why the courts are necessary, that causes and damages are part of justice, and that justice matters.'' During the past 13 years serving as the executive director of the Montana Association, Al has worked hard to represent the bar in both State and Federal matters. I have had the privilege of working with Al on a number of Federal initiatives and have always appreciated Al's thoughts on how Federal legislation could impact the rights of individuals in the legal system. Al also serves on the boards of directors for the National Association of Trial Lawyer Executives and A.W.A.R.E., a private, nonprofit organization providing quality, community-based services for persons with disabilities. Al served as the executive director and attorney for the Montana Advocacy Program, which works to protect and advocate for the human, legal, and civil rights of Montanans with disabilities. In 2009, Al was awarded the Montana Trial Lawyers Associations Public Service Award. Al received the Annual Award for Advocacy from the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy in 1991. He received his bachelor's in political science from Montana State University and his juris doctor from the Hastings College of the Law at the University of California. As a lifelong Montanan, Al has a deep appreciation for the State and all it has to offer. In his spare time, Al enjoys to hunt, fish, kayak, and climb Montana's beautiful mountains. Al is married to Marilyn, who was born and raised in Anaconda, and together they have two children-- daughter Kait and son Ben. I again congratulate Al for his recognition by the American Association for Justice.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Merkley, Senator Tester, Senator Crapo, and others to introduce the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010. The bill authorizes much needed funds to implement toxics reduction projects throughout the basin, and it authorizes next steps in our longstanding effort to protect and preserve the transboundary Flathead Basin. The Columbia River Basin is one of the great water basins along our border with Canada that binds our two nations together. The river spans about 1,200 miles and travels through 14 dams from Columbia Lake, British Columbia all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Several of the major subasins of the Columbia are located in Montana, including the Kootenai, the Flathead, the Clark Fork, the Blackfoot, and the Bitterroot. Toxics contamination is a problem in several of these subasins, and I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010, which will authorize much needed resources to address toxics contamination. The Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010 also includes the Transboundary Flathead Basin Protection Act of 2010. This part of the bill addresses the unique needs of one of the areas that I love about Montana. Everyone who experiences the North Fork of the Flathead in northwestern Montana is awed by its pristine waters, larger-than-life landscapes, and breathtaking views. With its headwaters in British Columbia, the North Fork of the Flathead River forms the western boundary of Glacier National Park--it is one of the last untouched places on our continent. For decades, the North Fork has been threatened by oil and gas and mining proposals in British Columbia. For the last 35 years, I have battled these proposals, one by one. After 35 years of work, we are beginning a new chapter of international cooperation in our efforts to protect the North Fork. In February of this year, British Columbia and Montana announced their intent to prevent mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development in the North Fork on the lands they control. This memorandum of understanding was a great foundation for additional efforts to establish protections that are permanent. Since 90 percent of the North Fork watershed is Federally-owned, Federal action is needed on the southern side of the U.S.-Canadian border. So, on March 4, Senator Tester and I introduced the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, S. 3075, which bans future mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development on Federal lands in the watershed. The bill enjoys support from business and conservation interests alike from all over the State, including the Kalispell Chamber, Whitefish Mountain Resort, the Billings Rod and Gun Club, and a long list of others. This breadth of support shows the importance of the North Fork for Montana's economy as well as our State's outdoor heritage. There are some current leases in the area that have been dormant since the late 1980s, when a court decision found that they were improperly issued. Senator Tester and I have been engaged in active discussions with the current owners to retire these old leases. On April 28, I was proud to announce that ConocoPhillips, the primary leaseholder in the North Fork watershed, elected to voluntarily relinquish its interest in 108 Federal oil and gas leases covering approximately 169,000 acres, representing 71 percent of the leased area in the North Fork watershed. On June 2, we announced that Chevron decided to voluntarily relinquish its interest in 11,000 acres of leases in the Flathead watershed. To date, we have managed to retire the primary interest in 180,000 acres in the North Fork watershed, free of charge to the American taxpayer. These actions are further evidence of the consensus that exists between the United States and Canada and among businesses and conservationists, that the withdrawal of these Federal lands from leasing is the only path forward. The transboundary Flathead section of the Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010 authorizes the next phase of our efforts to protect the Flathead. Just yesterday, the White House issued a statement that during the G20 meeting in Toronto, President Obama and Prime Minister Harper discussed the transboundary Flathead, recognizing the memorandum of understanding between British Columbia and Montana and exploring ways that the two governments can cooperate to ensure sustained protection of the North Fork. Senator Tester and I asked the President to discuss this issue with the Prime Minister on June 9th, and we are very pleased that the two made this a priority in light of the agenda at the G20. This commitment from the highest levels of government sets the stage for four-party talks between the United States, Canada, British Columbia, and Montana to establish permanent protections. The Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010 takes three key steps to move things forward in the Flathead. Before I walk through those, it is important to recognize that this is an authorization bill. It authorizes specific actions by the Federal Government and authorizes appropriations in support of those actions. It is important to remember that Congress works in a two-step process--first the authorization, then, once signed into law, appropriations follow. The bill authorizes the President to take steps to preserve and protect the transboundary Flathead River Basin. It is clear that the President has authority under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the Clean Water Act, and other statutes to take steps to prevent water pollution and protect wildlife in the transboundary Flathead. This section requires that the President act to meet these goals and provides explicit authority for the President to negotiate with Canada to ensure permanent protection for the North Fork and Glacier-Waterton National Park. The bill authorizes the President, acting through appropriate agencies, to participate in cross-border collaborations and environmental assessments with Canada. Federal agency participation in such assessments is anticipated in the MOU between British Columbia and Montana, and our bill provides the authority for this to occur. Finally, the bill authorizes grants for baseline environmental studies, analysis of environmental impacts of any proposed projects, implementation of transboundary cooperative efforts, and other projects to protect and preserve the transboundary Flathead River Basin. Funds for these and other purposes in the Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010 would be provided through the appropriations process, once this bill is signed into law. Mr. President, I want to reflect for a moment on how far we have come in Montana in efforts to protect the North Fork. In 1975, during my very first term in the House of Representatives, I introduced a bill to designate the Flathead River as a Wild and Scenic River. It was designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1976. For me, that began a lifelong effort to protect the North Fork. At that time I said: A hundred years from now, and perhaps much sooner, those who follow us will survey what we have left behind. The retirement of current oil and gas leases in the Flathead, the Energy Committee's very positive hearing on April 28 on S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act 2010, President Obama's action yesterday with Prime Minister Harper, our introducing of this bipartisan legislation today and its eventual passage are all steps in a decades-long process to protect this gem of the continent. I know that if we continue to cooperate with Canada, that if we can all keep our eye on the ball of long-term protection for the North Fork, that every Montanan, every American, and every Canadian who follows us will have the opportunity to share our feeling of awestruck wonder that such a place still exists, almost untouched by the modern world.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Merkley, Senator Tester, Senator Crapo, and others to introduce the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010. The bill authorizes much needed funds to implement toxics reduction projects throughout the basin, and it authorizes next steps in our longstanding effort to protect and preserve the transboundary Flathead Basin. The Columbia River Basin is one of the great water basins along our border with Canada that binds our two nations together. The river spans about 1,200 miles and travels through 14 dams from Columbia Lake, British Columbia all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Several of the major subasins of the Columbia are located in Montana, including the Kootenai, the Flathead, the Clark Fork, the Blackfoot, and the Bitterroot. Toxics contamination is a problem in several of these subasins, and I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010, which will authorize much needed resources to address toxics contamination. The Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010 also includes the Transboundary Flathead Basin Protection Act of 2010. This part of the bill addresses the unique needs of one of the areas that I love about Montana. Everyone who experiences the North Fork of the Flathead in northwestern Montana is awed by its pristine waters, larger-than-life landscapes, and breathtaking views. With its headwaters in British Columbia, the North Fork of the Flathead River forms the western boundary of Glacier National Park--it is one of the last untouched places on our continent. For decades, the North Fork has been threatened by oil and gas and mining proposals in British Columbia. For the last 35 years, I have battled these proposals, one by one. After 35 years of work, we are beginning a new chapter of international cooperation in our efforts to protect the North Fork. In February of this year, British Columbia and Montana announced their intent to prevent mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development in the North Fork on the lands they control. This memorandum of understanding was a great foundation for additional efforts to establish protections that are permanent. Since 90 percent of the North Fork watershed is Federally-owned, Federal action is needed on the southern side of the U.S.-Canadian border. So, on March 4, Senator Tester and I introduced the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, S. 3075, which bans future mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development on Federal lands in the watershed. The bill enjoys support from business and conservation interests alike from all over the State, including the Kalispell Chamber, Whitefish Mountain Resort, the Billings Rod and Gun Club, and a long list of others. This breadth of support shows the importance of the North Fork for Montana's economy as well as our State's outdoor heritage. There are some current leases in the area that have been dormant since the late 1980s, when a court decision found that they were improperly issued. Senator Tester and I have been engaged in active discussions with the current owners to retire these old leases. On April 28, I was proud to announce that ConocoPhillips, the primary leaseholder in the North Fork watershed, elected to voluntarily relinquish its interest in 108 Federal oil and gas leases covering approximately 169,000 acres, representing 71 percent of the leased area in the North Fork watershed. On June 2, we announced that Chevron decided to voluntarily relinquish its interest in 11,000 acres of leases in the Flathead watershed. To date, we have managed to retire the primary interest in 180,000 acres in the North Fork watershed, free of charge to the American taxpayer. These actions are further evidence of the consensus that exists between the United States and Canada and among businesses and conservationists, that the withdrawal of these Federal lands from leasing is the only path forward. The transboundary Flathead section of the Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010 authorizes the next phase of our efforts to protect the Flathead. Just yesterday, the White House issued a statement that during the G20 meeting in Toronto, President Obama and Prime Minister Harper discussed the transboundary Flathead, recognizing the memorandum of understanding between British Columbia and Montana and exploring ways that the two governments can cooperate to ensure sustained protection of the North Fork. Senator Tester and I asked the President to discuss this issue with the Prime Minister on June 9th, and we are very pleased that the two made this a priority in light of the agenda at the G20. This commitment from the highest levels of government sets the stage for four-party talks between the United States, Canada, British Columbia, and Montana to establish permanent protections. The Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010 takes three key steps to move things forward in the Flathead. Before I walk through those, it is important to recognize that this is an authorization bill. It authorizes specific actions by the Federal Government and authorizes appropriations in support of those actions. It is important to remember that Congress works in a two-step process--first the authorization, then, once signed into law, appropriations follow. The bill authorizes the President to take steps to preserve and protect the transboundary Flathead River Basin. It is clear that the President has authority under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the Clean Water Act, and other statutes to take steps to prevent water pollution and protect wildlife in the transboundary Flathead. This section requires that the President act to meet these goals and provides explicit authority for the President to negotiate with Canada to ensure permanent protection for the North Fork and Glacier-Waterton National Park. The bill authorizes the President, acting through appropriate agencies, to participate in cross-border collaborations and environmental assessments with Canada. Federal agency participation in such assessments is anticipated in the MOU between British Columbia and Montana, and our bill provides the authority for this to occur. Finally, the bill authorizes grants for baseline environmental studies, analysis of environmental impacts of any proposed projects, implementation of transboundary cooperative efforts, and other projects to protect and preserve the transboundary Flathead River Basin. Funds for these and other purposes in the Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010 would be provided through the appropriations process, once this bill is signed into law. Mr. President, I want to reflect for a moment on how far we have come in Montana in efforts to protect the North Fork. In 1975, during my very first term in the House of Representatives, I introduced a bill to designate the Flathead River as a Wild and Scenic River. It was designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1976. For me, that began a lifelong effort to protect the North Fork. At that time I said: A hundred years from now, and perhaps much sooner, those who follow us will survey what we have left behind. The retirement of current oil and gas leases in the Flathead, the Energy Committee's very positive hearing on April 28 on S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act 2010, President Obama's action yesterday with Prime Minister Harper, our introducing of this bipartisan legislation today and its eventual passage are all steps in a decades-long process to protect this gem of the continent. I know that if we continue to cooperate with Canada, that if we can all keep our eye on the ball of long-term protection for the North Fork, that every Montanan, every American, and every Canadian who follows us will have the opportunity to share our feeling of awestruck wonder that such a place still exists, almost untouched by the modern world.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Winston Churchill once said: A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. The great recession has been a difficulty, to say the least. Today we are looking for the opportunity. One opportunity--and our first priority--is to create new jobs. This is no easy task. Over the course of the great recession, more than 8 million jobs have been lost. But we must not shy away from this opportunity. The first step Congress took to create jobs was to pass the Recovery Act in February of 2009. In their latest report on the Recovery Act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that the Recovery Act has added 1.2 to 2.8 million people to America's payrolls. And in March, Congress passed the HIRE Act. The HIRE Act includes a payroll tax exemption for new hires. That act will help to bolster job creation in the coming months. These actions are working. In April, we learned that the economy added 290,000 jobs. And while we added fewer jobs than expected last month, May marked the fifth consecutive month of job growth. Since the beginning of 2010, the American economy has created more than half a million jobs. We are also beginning to see economic growth. Just a year ago, in the first quarter of 2009, the economy was shrinking at a rate of 6.4 percent. In the first quarter of this year, however, the economy grew at a rate of 3.2 percent. This was the third consecutive quarter of growth after four straight quarters of decline. In just 1 year, the economy went from freefall to sustained growth. These signs are encouraging. But we still have work to do. Mr. President, 15 million Americans remain unemployed. The national unemployment rate is still near 10 percent. The Congressional Budget Office does not expect unemployment to reach its ``natural state'' of 5 percent until 2016. Plainly, we must act. We must work to create jobs. In America, the private sector is the backbone of innovation and job creation. And within the private sector, small businesses are the principal engine of job creation. Over the past 15 years, small businesses have generated two-thirds of all new jobs. That is about 12 million new jobs. But the great recession hit small business especially hard. Over the course of the recession, small firms have accounted for 64 percent of net job losses. We need to focus on small business, as we seek to create jobs. When we help small businesses, we help to get Americans back to work. The first way that we can help small business is by promoting access to capital. Today, only half of small businesses seeking a loan are able to get the credit that they need, and nearly a quarter receive no credit at all. Compare this to 2005, when 90 percent of small employers had their credit needs met, and only 8 percent were unable to receive credit at all. It is clear that small businesses are facing major obstacles to getting capital. That is why our small business bill includes a provision to completely eliminate the tax on the sale of certain small business stock purchased this year. This proposal would provide a powerful incentive to invest in small, entrepreneurial firms, right now. We have also included a provision that would allow small businesses to carry back for 5 years their unused general business tax credits from this year. That is quite a bit. Current law is 1 year. And we have included another provision that would allow certain small businesses to use these general business credits against the alternative minimum tax. These provisions would free up business capital for expansion and job growth. And another provision would temporarily shorten the holding period of assets after a C corporation converts to an S corporation. This provision would allow small businesses to increase liquidity by selling assets that would otherwise be subject to an additional layer of tax. We can also help small businesses by stimulating investment. Small businesses need to make capital investments to improve and expand. One way to boost investment in equipment is by increasing the amount and types of property that small businesses can write off immediately, rather than expense over time. In this weak economy, the ability to deduct the costs of assets in the year that they are incurred provides an immediate benefit for small businesses. Our bill also includes an extension of bonus depreciation. This provision would help small businesses that purchase equipment to write off those purchases more quickly. The proposal would also help the businesses that sell the equipment. Bonus depreciation sparks investment, increases cash flows, and creates jobs. Our small business bill also includes two provisions to promote fairness and protect small businesses from costs that could slow business growth and development. First, the act modifies the penalties for small businesses that unknowingly invest in something that the IRS considers to be a tax shelter. Businesses can be subject to penalties of up to $300,000 for investing in a tax shelter. A penalty that large can severely jeopardize the success of a small business. Our bill would limit the penalty in relation to size of the investment. Our bill also promotes fairness by allowing business owners to deduct against self-employment tax the cost of health insurance in 2010 for themselves and their family members. Current law does not permit the self-employed to deduct the cost of health insurance for themselves and their family members in calculating self-employment tax. But health care for employees receiving coverage through an employer is generally tax free. So our bill would put the self-employed on a more equal footing. Our small business bill includes provisions aimed at promoting entrepreneurship. According to a recent report, from 1980 to 2005, nearly all net job creation occurred in firms less than 5 years old. In fact, without startups, net job creation would have been negative almost every year for the past three decades. As our economy emerges from the great recession, we need to ensure that American entrepreneurs have the resources, the financing, and the opportunities they need to create jobs and realize their dreams. Our bill would help promote entrepreneurship by temporarily increasing the amount of startup costs that could be deducted. This would free capital that could be used to invest in other aspects of business. Our bill would devote more than $5 million to the U.S. Trade Representative to expand opportunities for U.S. small businesses in foreign markets. This would help American goods and services to reach new customers around the world, this would create jobs right here at home, and this would help the USTR to enforce our trade agreements to ensure American startups can compete on a level playing field. Our bill is all paid for. No deficit spending here--all paid for. Our bill would reduce the tax gap, promote retirement preparation, and close tax loopholes. Today, we must find opportunity in a difficulty. The great recession has been a major difficulty for American workers and small businesses, but we can seize a major opportunity by helping small businesses and getting Americans back to work. I urge my colleagues to support this important small business jobs bill. National Flood Insurance Program

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, spoke a few moments ago about the amendment we hope we can consider shortly, the Kerry-Ensign amendment on cell phones. That amendment deals with when an employer gives a cell phone to an employee. The question is, Is that compensation to the employee or is that an investment by the employer? Under current law, the IRS expects taxpayers to document how much they use the company's cell phone for business and how much they use it for personal use. I think most people don't keep these records. Frankly, most of my colleagues don't believe they should have to. This amendment says businesses should not have to bear this onerous recordkeeping burden anymore. It is a commonsense amendment. It has broad bipartisan support. I urge colleagues to support it at the appropriate time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I, too, wish to say some words on the passing of our good friend and former leader, Robert C. Byrd. It is difficult to sum up in words the thoughts and feelings one has for a departed friend whom one has known so long. I had the pleasure of serving with Senator Byrd my entire career in the Senate. I knew, I liked, and I respected Robert C. Byrd for more than 30 years. It is doubly difficult to put into words thoughts that adequately reflect such a presence in the Senate. Robert C. Byrd was a singular Senator. He was a Senator's Senator. There was no title he prized more than that of ``Senator.'' When I came to the Senate, Robert C. Byrd had succeeded my mentor, Mike Mansfield, as majority leader. As Robert Byrd was fond of noting, he served as majority leader and then minority leader and then back as majority leader. He saw the leadership of the Senate from both sides, and his experience seasoned his leadership. As proud as he was to earn the title of ``Senator,'' he was even more proud that as a Senator he represented the people of his State. I deeply believe that is one of the finest things one can say about a fellow Senator. For more than 50 years, he was a strong voice for the people of West Virginia. Robert Byrd was a strong voice for democracy. He knew the rules of the Senate better than any person alive. He fought to preserve the traditions and customs of what he truly believed is the world's greatest deliberative body. As my colleagues know, Robert Byrd cast more votes than any other Senator in the history of our Republic. I can recall when he cast his 18,000th vote. That vote just happened to have been on a motion to invoke cloture on an amendment offered by this Senator. The Senate did not invoke cloture that day. That is the way the Senate's rules often work. No matter the outcome, Senator Byrd was foremost in the defense of those rules. And Senator Byrd was foremost in the defense of the Constitution of the United States. Senator Byrd was a student of history more than any other Senator. Those of us who were here will not soon forget Senator Byrd's series of addresses to the Senate on the history of the Senate. And those of us who were here will not soon forget his series of addresses on the Senate of the Roman Republic. He knew that Senate too. Senator Byrd was a teacher. I can recall meeting with Senator Byrd on a highway bill. He and I both long believed passionately in the importance of our Nation's highways. At this one occasion, I recall being impatient about enacting the highway bill on which we were working. I can also recall the sage advice Senator Byrd gave me about the process, about the procedures, and about the personalities of how to get that bill through the Senate. As I look back on that meeting, I think of all the occasions Senator Byrd took the time to teach others of us about the Senate. He taught his fellow Senators. He taught visiting dignitaries from other countries. I might add parenthetically that it was not too many years ago when he was visiting Great Britain with some Senators and meeting with some Parliamentarians in Great Britain, and the subject of British monarchs came up, and it was only Senator Byrd who knew them all. He stood up, and he gave the name of every British monarch and the dates they served, up to the present. No other person in the room, including the members of the British Parliament, could do so. Robert C. Byrd did. He taught class after class of Senate pages. Robert Byrd will leave a legacy in the laws of the United States. He will leave a legacy in the rules and precedents of the Senate, and he will leave a living legacy in all the people who learned about the Senate at the knee of this great master. Robert Byrd was an orator. One might say he was the last of a breed. He spoke in a style that recalled his roots before microphones and amplification. He spoke memorably. He spoke like orators used to speak. Many of us recall celebrated speeches of Robert C. Byrd. I will read an extended quotation from one speech that sums up Robert Byrd's strong feelings for the Constitution and the Senate he loved so well. On October 13, 1989, many of us gathered to hear Robert C. Byrd speak. This is what Robert C. Byrd said: Mr. President, I close by saying, as I began, that human ingenuity can always find a way to circumvent a process. . . . But I have regained my faith. We are told in the Scriptures: ``Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.'' The Constitution is the old landmark which they have set. And if we do not rise to the call of the moment and take a stand, take a strong stand against our own personal interests or against party interests, and stand for the Constitution, then how might we face our children and grandchildren when they ask of us as Caesar did to the centurion, ``How do we fare today?'' And the centurion replied, ``You will be victorious. As for myself, whether I live or die, tonight I shall have earned the praise of Caesar.'' And Robert C. Byrd concluded: As [Aaron] Burr bade goodbye to the Senate over which he has presided for 4 years, this is what he said. And I close with his words because I think they may well have been written for a moment like this. He said: ``This House is a sanctuary; a citadel of law, of order, and of liberty, and it is here--it is here--in this exalted refuge--here, if anywhere, will resistance be made to the storms of political phrensy and the silent arts of corruption; and if the Constitution be destined ever to perish by the sacrilegious hands of the demagogue or the usurper, which God averts, its expiring agonies will be witnessed on this floor.'' So today, Mr. President, I will close my words for my friend, Robert C. Byrd, noting that in life he was victorious. As for myself, whether I succeed or not, whether I live or die, today I can count no greater praise than to say I served with Robert C. Byrd. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of the small business jobs bill: Maia Aageson, Emilyn Anderson, Logan Baker, Mary Baker, Andrew Fishburn, Benjamin Furnas, Anders Landgren, John Merrick, Kristian Miller, Kathryn Spika, Greg Sullivan, Logan Timmerhoff, Ashley Zuelke.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we are on the message now. First, I commend my colleague from Rhode Island for his efforts to enact legislation which will level the playing field. It is only proper that foreign companies that operate in the United States have the same ability of service of process that American companies have. I commend him and tell my friend from Rhode Island that at the first opportunity, I will work hard to include his provision in an appropriate bill so it can pass and be enacted into law. I remind my colleagues that for several weeks now the Senate has been working to pass this important bill that is before us, the so-called extenders bill. This week marks at least the eighth week the Senate has spent most of the week on this bill to extend current tax law and safety net provisions. This is a bill that would remedy serious challenges that American families face as a result of this great recession. This is a bill that works to build a stronger economy. Americans want that. It is a bill to put Americans back to work. Clearly, with national unemployment hovering around 10 percent, Americans want that, too. With this bill, we have fought to pass policies to create jobs. We have fought for tax cuts for businesses. We have fought for small business loans. We have fought for career training programs, and we have fought for infrastructure investment. We have fought to pass tax cuts for families paying for college. We have fought to pass tax cuts for Americans paying property taxes and sales taxes. We have fought to extend eligibility for unemployment insurance, health care tax credits, and housing assistance for people who have lost their jobs. As of this week, 900,000 out-of-work Americans have stopped receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Why? Because of the Senate's failure to enact this bill. We have fought to help States cover the cost of low-income health care programs so that families in need can continue to get quality health care. Unfortunately, this has been a difficult fight. I don't know why, but it has been difficult. Those provisions I mentioned are clearly provisions the American public would like. For months now, we have been trying to address Senators' concerns. Senators expressed concern about the size of the bill. So we cut the total size of the bill. We cut it from $200 billion to $140 billion. Then we cut further to $118 billion, then to $112 billion, then to less than $110 billion today. We cut spending on health care benefits to unemployed workers under the COBRA program. We cut spending on the $25 bonus payments to recipients of unemployment insurance. We cut spending on the relief to doctors in Medicare and TRICARE. We have now cut spending on the help to States for Medicaid by one-third. We have provided additional offsets for the package. Senators requested that. Since the first time the Senate passed this bill, we have sought and found more than $75 billion in new offsets, and the bill is now more than two-thirds paid for. We have revised the carried interest provisions in at least eight different ways to address concerns raised by Senators. We have modified the S corporation loophole closer to limit its effect on firms with fewer than four partners. We heard Senators express an interest in more spending cuts. The substitute before us today comes forward with additional spending cuts. We have fought mightily to adjust the bill to address Senators' concerns. But in the fight for this legislation, let's not lose sight of what the real fight is about. For many families, this is a fight for the roof over their heads. This is a fight for the food on their tables. This is a fight for the jobs they desperately need. And this is a fight for the opportunity they hope will come through. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to create jobs this economy needs. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment for the families who are counting on us to come through. I urge my colleagues, at long last, to pass this bill. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request which the Senator from Arizona will appreciate. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the Reid motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213 with the Baucus amendment No. 4386 occur at 5:14 p.m. today, with Senator Kyl recognized to speak for up to 2 minutes and Senator Baucus recognized to speak for up to 2 minutes prior to the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, let us remember what this bill is all about. This bill will help American families face this great recession. This bill works to strengthen our economy and put Americans back to work. This bill would create jobs. That is what people want. It would cut taxes for businesses. That is what people want. It would facilitate small business loans. It would foster investment in highways and other infrastructure. This bill would cut taxes for families paying for college. It would cut taxes for teachers. It would cut taxes for Americans paying property taxes and sales taxes. It would extend unemployment insurance, health care tax credits, housing assistance for people who have lost their jobs. It would help States cover the cost of low-income health care programs. This week, 900,000 out-of-work Americans have stopped receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Why? Because Congress has failed to enact this bill. This has been a difficult fight, but it does not have to be difficult. In previous recessions, in previous Congresses, it was not this hard. But for months now, we have addressed Senators' concerns. Senators expressed concern about the size of the bill. So we cut the total size from $200 billion, then down to $140 billion, then down to $118 billion, now less than $110 billion. We cut spending on health care benefits to unemployed workers under COBRA. We cut spending on the $25 bonus payments to recipients of unemployment insurance. We cut spending on the relief to doctors in Medicare and TRICARE. We cut spending on help to States for Medicaid by one-third. Senators asked for more spending cuts. We came forward with more spending cuts. Since the first time the Senate passed this bill, we found $77 billion in new offsets. This bill is now 70 percent paid for. I just want to say that there is a great need for this bill. Americans want this bill passed, and, frankly, I very much hope this bill does pass. We do need the 60 votes. We do not need the 60 votes; the American people want us to pass this legislation. I yield back the remainder of my time. Cloture Motion

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, over the past several months, we have seen some improvement in our economy. One year ago, in the first quarter of 2009, GDP was declining at an annual rate of more than 6 percent. Just 1 year later, in the first quarter of 2010, GDP grew at an annual rate of 3 percent. This marks the third consecutive quarter of real economic growth. It is not just the GDP that is growing. Consumer spending has risen at an annual rate of 3.5 percent this year. Manufacturing output rose 9 percent over the first 4 months of the year. Businesses have increased spending on equipment and boosted their inventory investments. But one economic indicator continues to lag behind--employment. The national unemployment rate stands at 9.7 percent. Over the course of this Great Recession, the American economy has lost more than 8 million jobs. In total, 15 million Americans remain out of work. We must act to create jobs and get Americans back to work. We began creating jobs with the 2009 Recovery Act. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that last year's Recovery Act added 1.2 to 2.8 million people to America's payrolls. In March, Congress passed the HIRE Act. The HIRE Act, which includes a payroll tax exemption for new hires, should help to bolster job creation in the coming months. This week, we are considering the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. That bill will create jobs by providing tax cuts and certainty to American businesses. It will create jobs by improving our nation's infrastructure. And it will create jobs by making direct investments in jobs for young adults and needy families. After we consider the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, the Senate will consider a small business jobs bill. The Finance and Small Business committees are currently writing that bill. Today, I am introducing another important jobs bill. This bill will extend bonus depreciation through 2010. I am introducing this extension as a stand-alone bill because of the unique ability of bonus depreciation to help businesses and create jobs. In 2008, Congress temporarily allowed businesses to recover the costs of certain capital expenditures more quickly than under ordinary depreciation schedules. The 2008 law allowed businesses to immediately write off 50 percent of the cost of depreciable property placed in service in 2008. The Recovery Act extended bonus depreciation. But the provision expired at the end of 2009. My bill would extend bonus depreciation to property placed in service in 2010. Bonus depreciation provides a double benefit. It helps two sets of businesses. It helps the business that purchases the equipment. It helps the business that sells the equipment. The businesses that purchase equipment can write off those purchases more quickly. This provides a significant tax savings. That savings makes equipment more affordable and encourages purchases. The savings gained from expensing, rather than the slower depreciation, allows businesses to use that money to invest in the business itself. Businesses can use those savings to hire employees. The more purchases that are made, the more other businesses are helped. This proposal will help manufacturers and suppliers to retain and hire employees as their businesses rebound. I have heard from a number of business owners in Montana that bonus depreciation has been extremely helpful for their business. An extension of bonus depreciation will boost economic activity by hundreds of millions of dollars. It will create hundreds of jobs in my home state of Montana. Bonus depreciation is a cost-effective provision that provides real relief for businesses. Bonus depreciation creates jobs. I urge my Colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, over the past several months, we have seen some improvement in our economy. One year ago, in the first quarter of 2009, GDP was declining at an annual rate of more than 6 percent. Just 1 year later, in the first quarter of 2010, GDP grew at an annual rate of 3 percent. This marks the third consecutive quarter of real economic growth. It is not just the GDP that is growing. Consumer spending has risen at an annual rate of 3.5 percent this year. Manufacturing output rose 9 percent over the first 4 months of the year. Businesses have increased spending on equipment and boosted their inventory investments. But one economic indicator continues to lag behind--employment. The national unemployment rate stands at 9.7 percent. Over the course of this Great Recession, the American economy has lost more than 8 million jobs. In total, 15 million Americans remain out of work. We must act to create jobs and get Americans back to work. We began creating jobs with the 2009 Recovery Act. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that last year's Recovery Act added 1.2 to 2.8 million people to America's payrolls. In March, Congress passed the HIRE Act. The HIRE Act, which includes a payroll tax exemption for new hires, should help to bolster job creation in the coming months. This week, we are considering the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. That bill will create jobs by providing tax cuts and certainty to American businesses. It will create jobs by improving our nation's infrastructure. And it will create jobs by making direct investments in jobs for young adults and needy families. After we consider the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, the Senate will consider a small business jobs bill. The Finance and Small Business committees are currently writing that bill. Today, I am introducing another important jobs bill. This bill will extend bonus depreciation through 2010. I am introducing this extension as a stand-alone bill because of the unique ability of bonus depreciation to help businesses and create jobs. In 2008, Congress temporarily allowed businesses to recover the costs of certain capital expenditures more quickly than under ordinary depreciation schedules. The 2008 law allowed businesses to immediately write off 50 percent of the cost of depreciable property placed in service in 2008. The Recovery Act extended bonus depreciation. But the provision expired at the end of 2009. My bill would extend bonus depreciation to property placed in service in 2010. Bonus depreciation provides a double benefit. It helps two sets of businesses. It helps the business that purchases the equipment. It helps the business that sells the equipment. The businesses that purchase equipment can write off those purchases more quickly. This provides a significant tax savings. That savings makes equipment more affordable and encourages purchases. The savings gained from expensing, rather than the slower depreciation, allows businesses to use that money to invest in the business itself. Businesses can use those savings to hire employees. The more purchases that are made, the more other businesses are helped. This proposal will help manufacturers and suppliers to retain and hire employees as their businesses rebound. I have heard from a number of business owners in Montana that bonus depreciation has been extremely helpful for their business. An extension of bonus depreciation will boost economic activity by hundreds of millions of dollars. It will create hundreds of jobs in my home state of Montana. Bonus depreciation is a cost-effective provision that provides real relief for businesses. Bonus depreciation creates jobs. I urge my Colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I note with great interest the comments of my good friend from Kentucky, Senator Bunning, about the need for coal- to-liquids technology. I agree. I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, as the Senator from Kentucky undoubtedly knows, I have urged this technology. He also knows regrettably the other body is opposed to this technology. We have had some difficulty in finding a way to resolve coal to liquids in both the House and the Senate. I might say to my friend from Kentucky, I am not sure that adding this provision is going to speed the passage of the so-called extenders bill. In fact, I might tease my good friend from Kentucky by saying I think my friend from Kentucky is opposed to passage of the extenders bill. Maybe, if I could ask the Senator, if he would support passage of the extenders bill?