Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, on July 12, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS announced a new initiative to allow States to experiment under the temporary assistance for needy families, TANF, block grant. The HHS initiative would waive some Federal requirements for qualifying states and instead allow them to develop and use ``alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.'' States would be required to improve employment by 20 percent in order to keep one of these waivers. Some of my colleagues object to this approach. I was a supporter of 1996 welfare reform and stand by the tenets of that reform. However, it has been seventeen years since that debate on welfare produced the TANF program. We would not expect a car to run for 17 years without maintenance. It is time to tune-up our Nation's antipoverty program. It is time to take a look under the hood. In the past, TANF has provided crucial benefits to struggling Americans. As poverty rates for women and children increase, it is vital to ensure our programs are adequately meeting the needs of this vulnerable population. The Congressional Research Service estimates that in 1995 over 14 million children were living in poverty. After welfare reform, the number of kids living in poverty decreased to about 11 million by 2000. Since then, these gains have been eroded. There were over 13 million kids in poverty by the start of the recession in 2007. Now there are over 16 million children in desperate need of assistance. These numbers do not indicate a healthy safety net. We must ensure that disadvantaged women and children continue to have access to the vital resources they need. In 2005, after several attempts to pass a TANF reauthorization bill in ``regular order,'' the TANF program was reauthorized as part of the Deficit Reduction Act. But it was not the comprehensive bipartisan TANF reauthorization voted out of the Finance Committee. Rather, it was a slimmed-down version placed in a budget reconciliation bill that focused on tightening up the work standards and adding grants for marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood. Furthermore, the reauthorization was solely written by Republicans without any Democratic input. I have nothing but the utmost respect for my distinguished colleague for Utah. I share in my colleague's strong belief that work is honorable and that it should be a cornerstone of our welfare system. While I certainly share in my colleague from Utah's concern over the unilateral waiver of legislative requirements, I am also a strong supporter of finding ways to improve Federal programs. I agree with the administration that innovation often comes from our partners in the States. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I have provided Montana and the other 49 States numerous opportunities to take initiative and improve our programs. Justice Louis Brandeis said, ``It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.'' Giving the 50 States an opportunity to experiment and improve on Federal programs allows us to determine what works and what doesn't. Allowing our States to have the flexibility to increase their work rates by 20 percent is a noble goal that improves the very foundation of our welfare system. I understand that there are concerns about how the 20 percent is calculated. However, the goal of increasing employment is my highest priority, a goal that I believe is shared by my friend from Utah. No matter how noble the goal, I agree that there are better ways to go about making improvements to the TANF program than bypassing the Congress. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over the TANF program. As a committee, we have never shirked our legislative responsibilities and could have been engaged in a more productive manner. However, this impasse around TANF waivers has prevented productive dialog on the needs of this Nation's most vulnerable women and children for almost a year. It is time to get back to business. I am willing to work with Senator Hatch to end this impasse. The American people deserve our best attention on getting people jobs that will support their families. With an eye toward reform, I asked the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to evaluate TANF. Since 1996, the number of families served by federal welfare programs has dropped from 3.9 million to 1.9 million in 2010. The GAO noted that this decline was not due to an increase in income but a decline in participation. GAO noted that States have erected increasingly more stringent barriers, making it difficult for families and children to qualify for TANF. The GAO also noted that current policies may be discouraging States from preparing difficult-to-serve families for the road back to work through TANF. Some options suggested for serving families with complex needs include adjustments to state requirements and a focus on employment outcomes. We may need to make some modest changes to ensure that the program runs smoothly, our tax dollars are spent efficiently, and that we provide a useful safety net for Americans. A safety net that encourages and inspires resiliency in the face of hardship is crucial to our growth and success. We have worked together to provide States with the opportunity to find solutions while maintaining rigorous standards in the child welfare programs. Continuing this trend is important, even more so when it involves lifting families out of poverty. We have had a strong bipartisan relationship on the Finance Committee, and I look forward to working with the ranking member to improve our welfare system. Women should not be faced with the hard choices like staying in abusive relationships in order to provide for their kids or leaving their children with less than trustworthy guardians to find a job. We can do better. Input from the administration, States, and other stakeholders on what they think might improve the program is welcome and needed. I am looking forward to working with my colleague from Utah on a legislative solution that improves the TANF program in real ways for women and children.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from Rhode Island how much time he wishes to speak?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am fine. I think we should wait, let the Senator from Rhode Island proceed with his statement, and if the Senator from South Carolina wants to go ahead----

Mr. BAUCUS. Whatever the two Senators work out, great.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The philosopher Bertrand Russell said, ``The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating a problem in a way that will allow a solution.'' I come to the floor today with my good friend Senator Orrin Hatch to state our concerns about a national problem that is holding back our economy. We are here to call on our colleagues to provide ideas that will allow a solution. First, the problem. America's Tax Code is complex, it is inefficient, and it is acting as a brake on our economy. Senator Hatch and I believe it is in need of a serious overhaul. It has been close to three decades since the last major revision to the Tax Code. In that time Congress has made about 15,000 changes to the Tax Code. The Code now contains nearly 4 million words. Here it is, right here. The Tax Code. This is America's Tax Code, all 24 pounds of it. Paperback. Think how heavy it would be for hard cover. It would take more than 18 days nonstop to read the Tax Code. In fact, it takes the average taxpayer 13 hours to gather and compile the receipts and forms to comply with the code. It costs Americans $160 billion a year to comply with the code, let alone the taxes Americans pay. This complexity in the code is eroding confidence in our economy and creating uncertainty for America's families and businesses. Clearly, the Tax Code is broken. That is the problem. It is a serious one. The solution calls for a more simple, more fair Tax Code, one that will allow the economy to grow and to create jobs. For the past few years, Senator Hatch and I have been working closely with all of the members of the Senate Finance Committee to reach that goal of comprehensive tax reform. We have held more than 30 hearings. We have heard from hundreds of experts about how tax reform can simplify the system for families, help businesses innovate, and make the United States more competitive.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I might say this blank slate is not, of course, the end of the discussion. You do not clear the decks and stop. Some of the provisions in the code obviously serve very important objectives. That is why they made it there in the first place. Some we will need to keep, clearly. Why? To make sure the Tax Code is at least as progressive after tax reform as it is today. I want to emphasize this approach is just a starting point. It is not a proposal. This is a good, fair, balanced way, a good-faith way, of including all Members of the Senate to get started. We believe it is going to lead to a solution, kind of the way Bertrand Russell suggested: You have to state the problem the way that it is going to lead to a solution. We think this is a good way to get to that solution.

Mr. BAUCUS. Now that we have a blank slate, we are asking all Senators; that is, all Senators, Senators on the committee, Senators off the committee--to submit detailed legislative proposals; that is tax expenditures, the credits, the deductions, exclusions, which they think should be added back that meet the test for growth and for jobs, as well as any other provisions Senators might have in mind that they think should be added or repealed, that they think make sense or other reforms they think make sense. In order to help guide our colleagues' submissions, we have released some rough estimates the Joint Committee on Taxation and our staffs have been working on. These estimates show how much the rates would rise, for example, if we add back tax expenditures and keep the current level of progressivity compared to a blank slate. We put this out today. Why? Because we wanted everybody to know there is a tradeoff involved; that is, when you keep tax expenditures, there is going to be an increase in rates, certainly compared with what otherwise we start with. The more tax expenditures there are, the less revenue there is for a rate reduction and deficit reduction, and the more complicated our Tax Code will end up being.

Mr. BAUCUS. We also need to remember, this is not just about tax expenditures. There is much more to it than confining our discussion to tax expenditures, because at its core tax reform means making the Tax Code more fair, easier to deal with for families all across our country. There are a lot of loopholes, on the other hand, in the code we should get rid of. People who can afford fancy tax advisers should not be able to take advantage of loopholes regular Americans do not have available to them. As chairman and ranking member of the committee, we are determined to complete tax reform this Congress. We cannot afford to be complacent. Improving the Tax Code provides a great opportunity to spark economic growth, to create jobs, and make U.S. businesses more competitive. I might add at this point, other countries are modernizing their codes. We are going to be left in the dust if we do not modernize ours. We need to hear from our colleagues as to what provisions they think will help us reach those goals. I have a great partner in this mission, my good friend Senator Hatch. I will keep communicating and working with the administration and the Senate leadership as we move forward. Working together we can get this done. I believe strongly that nothing of consequence ever happens around here if one person tries to accomplish something alone on his or her behalf; rather, matters of consequence are accomplished when people work together. We clearly want a matter of consequence to pass here. We will do so by working together.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank Senator Hatch. It is mutual. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. First, I very much thank my colleague from Rhode Island for all his work in many areas, a great Senator, a great statesman, and a great representative to the people in the State of Rhode Island, and also for his work on the resource legislation which he mentioned. At this point I want to add my thanks to all of those who worked on the recently passed immigration bill. Senator Graham made a point of thanking Senators. I want to also thank all of the so-called Gang of 8: Senator Schumer, Senator Menendez, Senator Rubio, Senator Bennet, Senator Durbin, Senator Graham, Senator Flake, and Senator McCain for their great work. They worked very hard to get that bill together, and of course, Senator Corker and Senator Hoeven came up with the key amendment to put the bill over the finish line. My hat is off to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Senator Leahy and of course our leader Senator Reid, who marshaled those efforts. They did a great job. There is no end to the commendation they should receive.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, just outside this Chamber is a bust of President Theodore Roosevelt. When I walk past it, I am often reminded of one of my favorite T.R. quotes, which is, ``Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.'' For the past 3 years, I have been working with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee on comprehensive tax reform. It has been hard work, but it has certainly been work worth doing. We have had more than 30 hearings. We have heard from hundreds of experts about how tax reform can simplify the system for families, help businesses innovate, and make the U.S. more competitive. Our efforts have been ramping up over the past several weeks, and we are starting to build momentum. Senator Hatch and I have been working very closely with members of the Finance Committee on a series of 10 discussion papers, examining key aspects of the Tax Code--each of the discussion papers on a different aspect of the Code. We began back in March, with a discussion on simplifying the system for families and businesses. There have been nine others. We then met as a full committee every week the Senate has been in session to go through different topics, presenting a range of options, and sitting around a table asking questions of staff, what about this and that, and asking questions of each other. It is a very informative process that is bringing us even closer together, establishing trust and confidence in what we are doing and learning a lot more about what the code is and is not. We concluded these meetings this morning with a discussion on non- income tax issues; for example, payroll taxes and excise taxes. That is not income taxes. The meetings have been very beneficial. We are building trust and getting everyone's buy-in. I also speak weekly with the Treasury Secretary about tax reform, getting his ideas and what seems to make sense for him and for the administration. I have been working for quite some time with my counterpart in the House, Chairman David Camp. In fact, we have been meeting weekly, Chairman Camp and I, face to face for more than a year now discussing matters that apply to the Finance Committee, as well as Ways and Means, but especially tax reform. He is working just as hard on his side in the other body. Our shared goal is to make the code more simple, to make it more fair for families to spark a more prosperous economy. I believe very strongly if we can simplify the code, as well as other measures that need to be taken, people will feel better about it. They will not think the other guy has a big loophole that he cannot take advantage of. It will help people feel better about themselves. It will certainly help small businesses because the code is so complex for small business. I think that in and of itself will help create some innovation, some entrepreneurship and energy for more jobs. Together, Chairman Camp and I have also recently launched a Web site. It is called taxreform.gov. The site will enable us to get even more ideas and to hear directly from the American people, not people in Washington, DC, but from around the country. People all around can tell us what they think. We want to know what people think, what they think the Nation's tax system should look like, how we can make families' lives easier, and how we can ensure a less burdensome Tax Code. We have received a lot of hits, if you will, to the Web site. Over 30,000 so far, 10,000 submissions. That is ideas people have from every State in the Nation. People are overwhelmingly--I must tell you, if you were to categorize the character of the submissions, overwhelmingly they are calling for a much more simple code. People want the code a lot more simple. It is too complex. For example, a fellow named David from Redmond, WA, wrote: I'm a retired lawyer and I cannot prepare my own tax returns-- Why-- because of the technical and incomprehensible language of the code. I commend you and hope you are successful. That is just an example. Richard, from my hometown of Helena, MT, noted that the current Tax Code is outdated and does not work effectively or efficiently. He said, ``It needs to be simple, effective, and fair.'' Again, another representative submission. I think Richard and David hit the nail on the head. Over and over, that is what we are hearing: simple, effective, and fair. Chairman Camp and I are going to be making a big push in the coming weeks to further engage our colleagues in Washington, as well as people all across America. How are we going to do that? Well, we are going to travel. We are going to travel to other cities, Chairman Camp and I together. We are going to travel outside of Washington, DC, where the real Americans reside. We are going to talk to individuals, we are going to talk to families, business owners, big and small, to hear directly what the people have in mind. Again, we are doing this because we want to hear directly from the American people, not just people in Washington, DC. We will be announcing our first visit outside of Washington, DC, next week. We want to hear what people think. Momentum is building. Now is the time to do reform. I might say, in my view, if we cannot get tax reform passed in the Congress, I do not think we will ever be able to address the issue for maybe 3 years. I doubt we will do it next Congress because that will be a Presidential election year. We will have to wait for the new President. It is going to take a long time. That is critically dangerous because the last time the code was significantly reformed was 1986. The world has changed dramatically since 1986. The code is too dated. I might say this: Since 1986, the last time the Tax Code was reformed, there have been 15,000 changes to the code--15,000. No wonder it is complex. No wonder people want it more simple and more fair. I think working together we in Congress can improve the code and update it to the 21st century. This comes down to working together. It comes down to building trust on both sides of the aisle, both bodies. It is going to help the American people when we do reform the code in this Congress. I do not know how many months it is going to take, but we are going to do all we can. As Teddy Roosevelt said: Hard work is worth doing if it is for a good cause. This is clearly hard work, I can tell you that, but it is also for a good cause. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee reported out the nomination of Michael Froman to be USTR unanimously. It is rare that I speak so highly of somebody. I can think of many top administration officials who are very good. Michael Froman will be another. He is very smart, and he is very tough. He is the right person for the job as the United States begins to negotiate trade agreements with Asia, the so- called TPP, as well as the trade agreement with the Europeans. Our economic future is tied to economic growth tied to trade. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for Michael Froman. Give him a big vote so that when he goes to Geneva and when he goes to other parts of the world to negotiate trade agreements, the world will know he has our strong support. Michael Froman is a great man, and I hope very much that he gets that vote where everybody votes for him. He is a good man.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

Mr. BAUCUS. I would ask for 10 or 15 seconds.

Mr. BAUCUS. I would say to my good friend from Massachusetts that if she will work with us, we will work with Mr. Froman to make sure he answers all of our questions. I plan to work with the Senator to get answers to the questions. I was unaware of this problem until the Senator just mentioned it.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in 1865, Horace Greeley wrote in the New York Tribune, ``Go West, young man, and grow up with the country.'' For decades, Greeley's words captured the imagination of a country, and millions of families flocked to the West for a glimpse of the American dream. Rural America continues to thrive, and places like my home State of Montana offer an excellent place to raise a family. But there is a no question that rural and frontier America present unique circumstances that differ substantially from our more urban neighbors. While rural education is becoming an increasingly large and important part of the U.S. public school system, the unique challenges and opportunities within rural communities are often misunderstood or overlooked. According to the Digest of Education Statistics reported annually by the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of students attending rural schools increased by over 11 percent, from 10.5 million in 2004 to nearly 11.7 million by 2008. Rural students now comprise almost one fourth of the Nation's public school enrollment. And nearly one-third of all schools in the nation are located in rural areas. Yet despite the significant percentage enrolled in rural schools, the importance of rural education is often obscured by the fact that rural students are--naturally--widely-dispersed, located in small, geographically isolated school districts. The size, diversity, and complexity of rural education support a greater policy focus on the unique challenges and solutions for rural education. Montana is the fourth largest State by land mass, totaling over 147,000 square miles. More than half of Montana's 830 schools enroll less than 100 students. From Eureka to Ekalaka, from Scobey to Darby, these small schools dot the landscape, providing not only a learning environment but often a thriving community center. Montana's rural communities are doing an excellent job educating our next generation. Overall, Montana graduation rates are higher than the national average. Montana students taking the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, in 2011 scored higher than the national average in both reading and math. But despite the success of Montana's rural schools, they also face a unique set of challenges that their urban-centric peers may not even comprehend. For example, rural schools report greater difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified teachers, due to inability to offer competitive salaries, geographic isolation, and for some, severe weather. Rural districts often have fewer personnel. The district superintendent is often also the high school principal. He or she may also be the Title I coordinator, the math curriculum specialist, and sometimes also the bus driver. In isolated areas, schools face challenges in providing professional development and training for teachers and principals. Small rural districts are often located long distances from other districts, towns, and universities, drastically reducing opportunities to partner or collaborate. Additionally, the long distances students must travel between school and home make it more difficult to participate in traditional remedial services, mentoring, and after- school programs. And while Horace Greeley encouraged us to ``Go West'', many of the Department of Education's recent initiatives have failed to do just that. In the first two rounds of the Race to the Top competitive grant, only one State west of the Mississippi received funding. And in some cases, even good intentions have created adverse consequences. The first round of the Investing in Innovation, i3, competitive grant program provided ``competitive preference points'' for applicants serving at least one rural district, in an effort to encourage and support rural applicants. However, the Department's lack of guidance and independent scorers' lack of understanding of rural areas still left authentically rural programs at a clear disadvantage. The Rural School & Community Trust highlighted in its report Taking Advantage that this ``rural preference'' instead had the effect of inducing urban applicants to include minimal rural participation merely in order to gain the additional scoring points for primarily urban projects. While the Department has made strides to improve the competitive chances of rural applicants, funding under the I3 grant continues to be directed to more urban school districts. I am joined today by my colleagues Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia and Senator Collins of Maine in reintroducing the Office of Rural Education Policy Act. This bipartisan bill will establish the Office of Rural Education Policy, housed at the Department of Education's Office of Elementary & Secondary Education. This Office and its Director will be tasked with coordinating the activities related to rural education and advising the Secretary on issues important to rural schools and districts. The legislation requires the Department to consider the impact of proposed rules and regulations on rural education and to produce an annual report on the condition of rural education. The goal of this bill is to allow rural schools to focus their time and resources on students in the classroom rather than red tape in the bureaucracy. The Office of Rural Education Policy will be tasked with establishing a clearinghouse for collecting and disseminating information related to the unique challenges of rural areas, as well as, the innovative efforts underway in rural schools to tackle these challenges. We have received strong support from dozens of organizations, including: American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of School Administrators, Alliance for Excellent Education, Center for Rural Affairs, Coalition for Community Schools, Council for Opportunity in Education, Montana School Board Association, Montana State Superintendents Association, Montana Rural Education Association, National Association of Development Organizations, National Education Association, National Farmers Union, National School Board Association, Organizations Concerned about Rural Education, Rural School and Community Trust, and Save the Children. I want to thank all the supporters of the bill, and want to particularly thank the efforts of the Rural School and Community Trust for its steadfast commitment to this proposal. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate to move this legislation, to ensure our rural students and schools across the country are given a fair shake. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in 1865, Horace Greeley wrote in the New York Tribune, ``Go West, young man, and grow up with the country.'' For decades, Greeley's words captured the imagination of a country, and millions of families flocked to the West for a glimpse of the American dream. Rural America continues to thrive, and places like my home State of Montana offer an excellent place to raise a family. But there is a no question that rural and frontier America present unique circumstances that differ substantially from our more urban neighbors. While rural education is becoming an increasingly large and important part of the U.S. public school system, the unique challenges and opportunities within rural communities are often misunderstood or overlooked. According to the Digest of Education Statistics reported annually by the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of students attending rural schools increased by over 11 percent, from 10.5 million in 2004 to nearly 11.7 million by 2008. Rural students now comprise almost one fourth of the Nation's public school enrollment. And nearly one-third of all schools in the nation are located in rural areas. Yet despite the significant percentage enrolled in rural schools, the importance of rural education is often obscured by the fact that rural students are--naturally--widely-dispersed, located in small, geographically isolated school districts. The size, diversity, and complexity of rural education support a greater policy focus on the unique challenges and solutions for rural education. Montana is the fourth largest State by land mass, totaling over 147,000 square miles. More than half of Montana's 830 schools enroll less than 100 students. From Eureka to Ekalaka, from Scobey to Darby, these small schools dot the landscape, providing not only a learning environment but often a thriving community center. Montana's rural communities are doing an excellent job educating our next generation. Overall, Montana graduation rates are higher than the national average. Montana students taking the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, in 2011 scored higher than the national average in both reading and math. But despite the success of Montana's rural schools, they also face a unique set of challenges that their urban-centric peers may not even comprehend. For example, rural schools report greater difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified teachers, due to inability to offer competitive salaries, geographic isolation, and for some, severe weather. Rural districts often have fewer personnel. The district superintendent is often also the high school principal. He or she may also be the Title I coordinator, the math curriculum specialist, and sometimes also the bus driver. In isolated areas, schools face challenges in providing professional development and training for teachers and principals. Small rural districts are often located long distances from other districts, towns, and universities, drastically reducing opportunities to partner or collaborate. Additionally, the long distances students must travel between school and home make it more difficult to participate in traditional remedial services, mentoring, and after- school programs. And while Horace Greeley encouraged us to ``Go West'', many of the Department of Education's recent initiatives have failed to do just that. In the first two rounds of the Race to the Top competitive grant, only one State west of the Mississippi received funding. And in some cases, even good intentions have created adverse consequences. The first round of the Investing in Innovation, i3, competitive grant program provided ``competitive preference points'' for applicants serving at least one rural district, in an effort to encourage and support rural applicants. However, the Department's lack of guidance and independent scorers' lack of understanding of rural areas still left authentically rural programs at a clear disadvantage. The Rural School & Community Trust highlighted in its report Taking Advantage that this ``rural preference'' instead had the effect of inducing urban applicants to include minimal rural participation merely in order to gain the additional scoring points for primarily urban projects. While the Department has made strides to improve the competitive chances of rural applicants, funding under the I3 grant continues to be directed to more urban school districts. I am joined today by my colleagues Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia and Senator Collins of Maine in reintroducing the Office of Rural Education Policy Act. This bipartisan bill will establish the Office of Rural Education Policy, housed at the Department of Education's Office of Elementary & Secondary Education. This Office and its Director will be tasked with coordinating the activities related to rural education and advising the Secretary on issues important to rural schools and districts. The legislation requires the Department to consider the impact of proposed rules and regulations on rural education and to produce an annual report on the condition of rural education. The goal of this bill is to allow rural schools to focus their time and resources on students in the classroom rather than red tape in the bureaucracy. The Office of Rural Education Policy will be tasked with establishing a clearinghouse for collecting and disseminating information related to the unique challenges of rural areas, as well as, the innovative efforts underway in rural schools to tackle these challenges. We have received strong support from dozens of organizations, including: American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of School Administrators, Alliance for Excellent Education, Center for Rural Affairs, Coalition for Community Schools, Council for Opportunity in Education, Montana School Board Association, Montana State Superintendents Association, Montana Rural Education Association, National Association of Development Organizations, National Education Association, National Farmers Union, National School Board Association, Organizations Concerned about Rural Education, Rural School and Community Trust, and Save the Children. I want to thank all the supporters of the bill, and want to particularly thank the efforts of the Rural School and Community Trust for its steadfast commitment to this proposal. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate to move this legislation, to ensure our rural students and schools across the country are given a fair shake. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I inquire of the chairwoman if I might be able to speak for about 5 or 10 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson once said: ``Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.'' I know many Montana farmers and ranchers who understand that exactly. They know what Jefferson meant. They work the soils and tend their herds month after month, often through natural disasters such as the drought we had in 2012. It is hard work, but they do it because it is work worth doing. The dirt under their nails and the sweat on their brow puts food on our tables every day. The farm bill supports that effort, the bill before us this afternoon. It is work worth doing. Make no mistake, the farm bill is a jobs bill. It supports 16 million American jobs every year. In my State of Montana, one in every five jobs is tied to agriculture. Those jobs are counting on us to get this bill done. As we work to tackle the debt, it is important to remember the farm bill cuts spending by $23 billion. The farm bill is part of the solution, not part of the problem. Under the leadership of Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Cochran, we have crafted a true reform farm bill. We worked with farmers and ranchers across the country to create a farm policy that works for producers and taxpayers both. It provides support that is needed when they actually experience a loss. As Will Rogers notably said: ``The farmer has to be an optimist or he wouldn't still be a farmer.'' Farming is capital intensive. Farmers work with paper-thin profit margins. Even the best farmer is left at the mercy of weather and chance. The drought last year is an example of the risk farmers face. USDA predicts that 80 percent of agricultural land experienced drought in 2012, making it one of the most expensive droughts in a generation. In Montana that means 48 of 56 counties with parched crops and empty fields. The revenue program in this bill, combined with the crop insurance products we have fine-tuned over the decades, will help farmers survive disasters such as this and prepare to put food on America's tables when weather or market conditions improve. Anyone who has been to Montana knows we have the best-tasting beef in the world too--or at least we think so. For the last year our ranchers have weathered this drought with no support. With hay and water in short supply, they have been forced to thin their herds. Thinning herds means lost jobs in Montana, because 50 percent of our economy is tied to agriculture, and about 35 percent of our total agriculture proceeds come from cattle and calf sales. Livestock disaster assistance keeps our ranchers in business until the rain starts falling again. That is why I created these programs in 2008, and that is why I fought so hard to make them permanent in this bill--to finally provide our ranchers with certainty they can take to the bank. In the last farm bill they were not permanent and caused almost another disaster. I thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me to extend that livestock disaster with limited funds. We did not stop there. We did not stop with reforming the farm bill. We saved $6 billion from in the conservation title without compromising the policy. We did this by consolidating 23 existing programs, bringing a tight network of efficient and streamlined conservation programs. I made sure we protected the working lands programs, which contribute to substantial conservation improvements but still allow for productive use of the land. In the forestry title, we permanently authorized stewardship contracting. This is so important to the western one-third of our State. This will help the timber industry sustainably harvest more trees. Anyone in western Montana will tell you that means jobs. We also included support to combat the bark beetle epidemic that has killed over 6 million acres of Montana forests. Senator Bennet and I worked together to make sure those dead trees can be harvested more quickly before the wood wastes or burns. With fire season already well underway in Montana, this investment is more important than ever. I was also extremely proud of our work to help veterans find jobs in farming. Forty-five percent of our servicemembers come from rural areas. This is a national statistic, so farming is a natural fit for veterans looking to return home to a rural way of life. In the nutrition title, I am proud to say we kept the fundamentals of the food stamp program intact so low-income families have their safety net in place as the economy continues to improve. We even found a way to trump up spending for TEFAP, which provides emergency food for needy families. In Montana, agriculture is a way of life. It is our biggest industry. Our 29,300 farms produce billions of dollars worth of quality wheat, barley, peas, and lentils--to say nothing of our livestock. Our ranchers have 2.5 million head of cattle, which means there are more cows in Montana than people. The farm bill is not just for producers. It also provides funding for rural businesses, from Miles City, to Glendive, to Libby. The farm bill offers opportunities for Montanans of all walks of life. The same is true all across America. Our farm policy contributes to security in American agriculture, and that is why we spend less on food than any other country in the world. We spend less than any other developed country in the world. Americans spend less than 7 percent of their disposable income to feed their families. That compares with almost 25 percent in 1930. Our producers put food on tables around the world. In 2012, agricultural exports reached $136 billion, with a surplus of $32 billion--literally growing wealth from our fertile soils. Like any small business owner, farmers and ranchers all across Montana tell me the No. 1 thing they want is certainty. Operating under short-term extensions leaves millions of Americans' agricultural jobs stuck in limbo. Farmers and ranchers need certainty they can take to the bank. That is why they need this 5-year farm bill. If we can get this bill passed, we are on the road to moving away from these short- term extensions--which do no one any good--and moving to longer term legislation which does everybody a lot more good. I hope we can get this bill passed, it is so important. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a very important event that will be occurring this Sunday and Monday: 85 World War II veterans from Montana will take part in the fourth Big Sky Honor Flight and come to Washington, DC, to visit their monument--the WWII Memorial. Their trip is hosted by the Big Sky Honor Flight Program. The mission is to recognize American veterans for their sacrifices and achievements by flying them to Washington, DC, to see their memorials at no cost. The program, which has already flown more than 250 Montana veterans to visit the memorials, is generously funded by businesses, student groups, and folks all across Montana. These veterans come from all parts of our great State, and while they are in Washington, they will see the WWII Memorial and other monuments and enjoy a banquet honoring their service to the country. This is a special 2 days for this group of heroes, but it is also a time to give thanks for courage and sacrifice of all our veterans and service members. It is a time to reflect on the sacrifices made by those who fought on the frontlines in Europe and the Pacific, on the battlefields of Korea, in the jungles of Vietnam, the deserts of Iraq, and those who are currently fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan. We must not forget their sacrifices. I am so pleased I will be able to meet with these courageous Montanans. I ask the Senate to join me in welcoming these heroes to our Nation's Capital this weekend. I ask unanimous consent that the following names be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell and Senator Murray for their work to reform the harbor maintenance tax in order to keep our ports competitive. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I believe it is important that we work to improve our Nation's tax policy to make our Nation more globally competitive. I am committed to finding solutions to ensure that the harbor maintenance tax is reformed, to ensure U.S. tax policy does not disadvantage U.S. ports but also to improve our nation's infrastructure. Port improvement is imperative to our ability to conduct both domestic and international commerce. Many of my home State goods are exported through west coast ports in the Puget Sound and on the Columbia River, so I understand the broad impact of the ports and the need for continued attention. If we want to continue to compete both now and in the future we must ensure that we have the right policies in place, and that means reforming outdated policies to address the evolving needs of both the market and our Nation. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Cantwell and Senator Murray to find an appropriate fix and find an appropriate legislative vehicle for comprehensive reform.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary procedure?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to speak on another matter, as well as on the Marilyn Tavenner matter. Frankly, my remarks will take more than 4 minutes, so to what degree we can get the Senate to postpone votes, we will be working on that as I am speaking.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I object.