Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I wish to take a moment to shine the light on a dark topic in my home State of Montana. On Sunday I read something that hit me in the gut. The Billings Gazette reported that during 2010 at least 210 Montanans committed suicide. That is according to the Montana Department of Health and Human Services. That was 2010. In 2011 that number was 225. Another 5,600 Montanans attempted to kill themselves last year. That is a startling average of about 15 per day. In a State with roughly 1 million residents, that is nearly twice the national average. We in Montana have a saying that I think is quite accurate. Montana is really one big small town. We know each other, only about 1 or 2 degrees of separation. You know what. If you ask if we know Uncle Joe, we all know each other. We know somebody who knows someone very close to us. We know each other's families. These numbers are devastating. Among the victims of suicide in Montana are children, parents, neighbors, friends, and sadly many are also our military veterans who return home only to be held behind an invisible enemy line known as PTSD. In Montana, we are a proud home to more veterans than nearly any other State per capita. We also had more Montanans volunteer for service after 9/11 than anywhere else in the country per capita. There are nearly 300 Montanans serving in Afghanistan today. We are proud of these men and women, and we are grateful. We take our responsibility to honor them very seriously. So the statistics are all the more alarming. They are very important. In 2011 a report from the Center for a New American Security found that from 2005 to 2010, all across the country a servicemember took his or her life almost every 36 hours. Matt Kuntz, the executive director of the Montana chapter of the National Alliance of Mental Illness, has described Montana's suicide epidemic as a public health crisis. Matt knows all too well that behind each and every one of those numbers is a family and community devastated by the loss. Matt is a veteran himself. In 2007 he lost his stepbrother, an Iraq war veteran. I know Matt, and I knew his stepbrother. He lost his stepbrother to suicide. His stepbrother was so scared, so frightened to go back to Iraq after serving three or four tours of duty. He knew--he said to Matt: If I go back, I know I am going to die. So many of my friends and buddies have died. I know if I go back, I am going to die too. That caused him to be very depressed, and it caused his suicide. So my friend Matt took action. He dedicated himself to raising awareness. Largely because of Matt's dedication, the Montana National Guard led the way with a successful pilot program to increase screening of veterans both before and after deployment. That is natural in Montana because, as I said earlier, we are really one big small town. We know each other, we want to take action, and we want to get results. I was proud to champion particularly the 2010 Defense authorization bill that took the Montana National Guard model, which we developed in Montana. With the DOD Defense bill, it is now implemented nationwide. Now every branch of the military has implemented screenings. We started screening before kids go over, as soon as they come back, 6 weeks later after they are back, another 6 months later after they are back, just continually screening, personal screenings. Thousands of health care providers have been trained under this legislation and, most importantly, thousands of servicemembers are now getting personal and private one-on-one attention from a trained health care provider. There is still a lot more to be done, and I am proud we took steps to advance the ball yesterday by passing the Mental Health ACCESS Act as an amendment to the current bill. I applaud Senator Murray for her work on the measure, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. This provision creates comprehensive standardized suicide prevention within the DOD. It expands eligibility for VA mental health services to family members of veterans. It creates more peer-to-peer counseling opportunities, and it requires the VA to establish accurate, reliable measures for mental health services. When duty calls, we in Montana answer proudly. This is about taking care of these men and women just as they have taken care of us. These people put their lives on the line in the name of our State, our country, and our freedom. We have a responsibility to try to do all we can to help them return to their families and live a reasonable, healthful life back at home. Too many Montanans are suffering in silence, as in other parts of the country. Thank you for the opportunity to bring a voice to this important cause. Thank you, Matt, and thank you all for taking action in the Senate to further our efforts to give servicemembers and veterans the care and support they deserve. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friends from Michigan and Arizona for their gracious willingness to find an opportunity for me to make a brief statement. I rise today in strong support of the amendment to protect the military's ability to purchase American-made fuels. Powering our military with American-made energy makes our country safer and our economy stronger. Tying our hands and forcing the American military to depend on foreign oil is short-sighted and dangerous. Instead, we need to give our commanders the flexibility to power our military with homegrown energy, like Montana camelina that supports jobs right here in America. The Department of Defense is the largest single user of oil in the world--consuming more than 355,000 barrels of oil per day last year. Despite increased domestic production of fossil fuels, rising global prices and market volatility caused DOD's fuel bill to rise by more than $19 billion in 2011. The trend is expected to continue. This is why I strongly support the efforts of our military leaders-- that is what they want--to develop and employ alternative fuels. Our military leaders recognize the problem of rising fuel costs and dependence on foreign oil. The Pentagon's largest energy user, the Air Force, has established a goal of purchasing half of its domestically consumed aviation fuel from alternative sources by the end of 2016. The Navy has also invested in the F-18 Green Hornet program--a fighter jet powered by a biofuel blend. The DOD relies on a sustainable biofuel market to meet its goal of lessening the nation's dependence on foreign oil. It is very important to the Pentagon. Regrettably, a provision in the underlying bill will limit our military's ability to develop alternative fuels. Members on both sides of the aisle are concerned that this section of the Committee-passed bill would cause harm to our national security and military readiness. That is why I am fighting to allow the Pentagon to enter into long-term deals to buy biofuels as long as they are made right here in the USA. Montana is in the perfect position to provide the homegrown fuels our Nation needs to move toward energy security. There is clearly a demand from both the military and the private sector to use American-made biofuels. In 2011, the Navy, the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture aimed to assist the development and support of a sustainable commercial biofuels industry. They investigated the development biofuels as alternatives to diesel and jet fuels. The agreement included Montana farmers and corporations. Limitations placed on our military's procurement of alternative fuel would be detrimental to Montana's alternative fuel industry. As a result of investing in biofuels, renewable Montana-grown crops like camelina have been used by our military as the predominate feedstock for biofuel blends. I call these freedom fuels. Why? Because they help get us off of foreign oil and help bring good paying jobs to Montana. Researchers at Montana State University Northern in Havre, MT showed early that camelina to be a promising dryland crop for use in biodiesel and other bioproducts. Camelina, also known as ``Gold of Pleasure,'' is an oilseed crop that includes canola, mustard and broccoli. The small- seeded, cool-climate crop has been grown in Europe and the Northern plains of the United States. Since its initial production, the cost per gallon of camelina-based fuel in Montana has dropped annually by half. That is another reason why I think it makes sense to ramp up our domestic energy production, whether it is biofuels wind, coal, oil, natural gas, or hydropower. We need an energy policy that puts America back in control. We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil and work to develop all of our domestic resources--just like we have in my State of Montana. Alternative fuels will not replace fossils fuels all-together--no way. However, replacing even a small fraction of fuel consumed by our military with alternative fuels made here in the United States can improve strategic flexibility, insulate the defense budget from spikes in the cost fossil fuels, create good-paying jobs for Americans, and make the United States a more secure nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hatch and myself, we wish to recognize the outstanding career of Mr. Raymond J. Ahearn, Specialist in International Trade and Finance with the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Ray will retire on December 28, after more than 37 years of distinguished government service. Mr. Ahearn began working as a trade and finance analyst at CRS in April 1975, soon after receiving his MA in international affairs from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, SAIS. He later received his MA in economics from the George Washington University and also represented CRS at the National War College in Washington, DC, graduating in 1991. Upon joining CRS, Mr. Ahearn quickly established himself as a leading expert in U.S. trade policy. He wrote numerous reports and confidential memoranda and conducted hundreds of briefings for Members and congressional staff on a broad range of international economic issues. These issues addressed core topics on U.S. trade policy, such as U.S. trade laws to open markets for U.S. exporters, trade reorganization, the debate over free trade versus trade protectionism, and the future of U.S. trade policy. He also focused his authoritative and objective analysis on international financial issues, including the 2008 global financial crisis and the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis. Mr. Ahearn is well known for his expertise and deep institutional knowledge of the global trading system, particularly with respect to the World Trade Organization and related multilateral ``rounds'' of trade negotiations over the past 4 decades. More recently, he led important innovative research on rising economic powers and their trade policy implications for the United States. As a policy issue of growing congressional interest, his insightful analysis will continue to support Congress in understanding the transformative changes underway in the global economy.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. I will be very brief because I know others want to speak. This last conversation is extremely important. Northern Africa and other Arab countries are in a state of flux, to say the least. The Arab spring has caused lots of questions and profound implications that we don't begin to now fathom. Those countries don't have executive governments that have any experience. They have replaced tyrants who preceded them. These are Muslim countries. Many of the people who live in these countries believe other parts of the world are more wealthy and they have been put upon. Add to that, these are countries which, in most respects, have very high unemployment. Add to that, most of the demographics of these countries are such that close to half of the population is under the age of 25 or 30, maybe even younger than that. It is a powder keg, and these are countries which don't have the history and culture of the first amendment freedom of speech we have. I say all this because I urge all of us on both sides of the aisle to work together. It is an extremely complicated, complex situation. It used to be not too many years ago that politics stopped at the water's edge. It used to be not too many years ago that on foreign policy issues, because they are nonpartisan, we as a country worked together. We addressed the world with one voice. So I strongly caution my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to not make this a partisan issue; that is, U.S. policy in the Middle East, especially in this case, northern Africa--but, rather, we work together. It is so important. There is probably a reason why politics used to stop at the water's edge not too many years ago. Because it made us a lot more effective worldwide. I urge my colleagues not to be too critical of the other side of the aisle. It gets us nowhere. It is dividing and conquering, and that puts us at a great point of weakness. Second Big Sky Honor Flight To DC I rise on another matter and that is to recognize a very important event that is occurring this Sunday and Monday. What is that? Eighty- nine World War II veterans from the State of Nevada will take part in the Big Sky Honor Flight and come to Washington to visit their monument, the World War II 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. They raised money from Montanans all across the State to make this possible. I helped make this possible at steak fries, et cetera, and in today's economy, Montanans' generosity in paying for these flights is something special. Don't forget it has to be two tickets, one for the vet and one for the person helping the vet, because these World War II vets have been around several years and they often need a little bit of assistance. One of the passengers on Sunday's flight is a 102-year-old. His name is Dr. McDonald W. Held of Billings, MT. Don has had a remarkable life. He has been a U.S. Air Force intelligence worker, a professor, an author, a minister, and a college president. Don was born in 1909. What was going on in 1909? That year President Taft was inaugurated as the 27th President. The U.S. Army received its first delivery from the Wright brothers. Congress passed the Homestead Act, which resulted in a large influx of settlers all across the West, including my State of Montana. Don graduated from Baylor University in 1933 with a degree in speech. Although he earned his master's and doctoral degrees from Northwestern University, Don's heart remained at Baylor. He wears a Baylor workout suit every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday when he exercises at the Billings YMCA. Remember, Don is 102 years old. During World War II, Don served in the Air Force as an intelligence officer in the Philippines. After the peace treaty was signed he was stationed in Tokyo. He worked just a couple of buildings down from GEN Douglas MacArthur. After the war, Don embarked on his career in academics at Howard Payne University, as a professor there from 1955 to 1964. He presided over the speech and theater department and served as academic dean. Don then worked for 7 years at Wayland Baptist University before moving to Billings, MT. In Billings he became the first head of the speech and theater department at the Eastern Montana College, which we now know as Montana State University-Billings. At age 74, Don was ordained as a Baptist minister in the Baptist church. He has ministered in three churches in Montana and also served as a president of the Yellowstone Baptist Bible Institute, now Yellowstone Baptist College. Don and his wife Beverly have five children, five grandchildren, and seven great-grandchildren so far. His son Don, Jr., a veteran of the Vietnam war, will escort him to Washington this Sunday. This is a special weekend for this group of heroes. Believe me, I was here when the last honor flight came in. I cannot remember a time when I have been so touched by people. You see these World War II vets. Most of the men and women are just talking about their experiences. They are the ``greatest generation,'' as has been mentioned before, especially by Tom Brokaw. It is time to give them thanks for their courage, time to give them thanks for their sacrifice. They have done so much. It is time to reflect on all the sacrifices they made. Think of it, battles of Europe, Korea, the jungles of Vietnam, deserts of Iraq, and those who are currently fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan. We must not forget them. Please join me in welcoming our Montana heroes to Washington this weekend. I am going to be down there. I know many others will too. I yield the floor. I thank again my good friend from South Carolina.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to Mr. Jon Frederick Holder, a man who was instrumental in helping my staff prepare for a hearing the Senate Finance Committee held on private long-term disability benefits in September 2010. Jon died unexpectedly last spring at the youthful age of 71. The world has lost a dedicated attorney, a civil rights activist who took part in the Selma-Montgomery march, and an advocate who specialized in disability law. Jon spent the last 30 years working alongside his wife Kathleen at their small law firm in Maine defending people whose voices are muffled in a process that can become mired in duplicative forms, draconian due dates, and burdensome record collection. Jon worked with my staff as the Committee's hearing date neared, staying late into the evening to distil with witty anecdotes and a razor sharp understanding, ERISA's complex statutory law, its legislative history and the seminal judicial interpretations that dramatically changed it. He described the insurance industry's corporate structure and its goal to reduce the benefit ratio percentage. Then he put flesh on that structure as he described what achieving that reduction goal means to the individual whose disability check suddenly stops arriving. A philosophy major-turned-lawyer, an avid bicyclist who loved the ocean, a husband and a father, Jon approached life with passion and purpose questioning and challenging the status quo and always seeking for ways to change or improve it. He will be missed by those close to him, but his legacy of good works lives on.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, William Shakespeare once said, ``Nimble thought can jump both sea and land.'' Today I wish to pay tribute to a U.S. Government agency whose thinking is nimble and its actions as well. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. For 50 years, USTR's small but elite staff has been crossing the globe, over sea and land, to break down barriers to American exports, and they have helped develop a world linked by trade, a world governed by rules, to ensure a level playing field for our exporters and their workers. USTR has been remarkably effective at that task. Since the creation of the Special Trade Representative in 1962, annual U.S. trade has grown from $52.1 billion to $4.8 trillion, contributing to economic growth of nearly 350 percent. USTR led the way through 20 FTA negotiations, multiple GATT and WTO Rounds, and countless bilateral trade negotiations in its quest to create opportunities abroad for U.S. businesses, workers, farmers and ranchers, in order to reach the 95 percent of global consumers who live outside the United States. USTR spearheaded the effort to create the fundamental rules and structures that underpin the global trading system. It successfully concluded the Uruguay Round negotiations that created the World Trade Organization. The WTO contributed to an explosion of trade and extended the rules-based trading system to nearly every trading nation of the world. Throughout it all, the dedicated officials at USTR have maintained their commitment to expanding economic growth through trade, for the benefit of all Americans. Through Democratic and Republican administrations, USTR officials have put the interests of all Americans first. And they have accomplished so much with so little. Never larger than its current strength of about 250 professionals, USTR has turned its small size into a virtue. USTR acts and reacts quickly, cutting through bureaucratic obstacles in the government to develop and execute market-opening strategies to break down barriers facing American exporters abroad. As part of the Executive Office of the President, USTR is perfectly positioned to leverage the resources of the entire U.S. government and to integrate the full range of stakeholder interests on trade issues. And it is perfectly positioned, and has served well, as an effective and indispensable interlocutor with the U.S. Congress. USTR understands and respects Congress's constitutionally established role in the regulation of international trade. Through its close consultations with Capitol Hill, USTR presents to the world a trade policy that enjoys broad support. USTR would not be as effective and it could not perform its role if housed elsewhere in the government or were it to become much larger and more bureaucratic. As others have observed over the years, if USTR did not exist in its current form, it would have to be reinvented. USTR is now hard at work on a number of initiatives that continue its legacy of expanding trade for the benefit of all Americans, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and World Trade Organization agreements on topics from services liberalization to customs reform. And USTR remains hard at work enforcing our existing trade agreements at the WTO and elsewhere, to ensure the United States receives the full benefit of those agreements. So I would like to extend my congratulations to Ambassador Kirk, his predecessors, and the entire USTR team past and present for reaching the 50-year milestone. I look forward to another half century of stellar accomplishments, and I can assure you that I will do everything I can to help make that possible.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a very important event that will be occurring this Sunday and Monday. Eighty-nine World War II veterans from Montana will take part in the 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. These veterans come from all parts of our great State. This is a special weekend for this group of heroes. It is also a time to give thanks for the courage and sacrifice of all our veterans and servicemembers. It is a time to reflect on the sacrifices made by those who fought on the front in Europe, 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, and I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 3 months ago the United States Senate came together and passed a full 5-year farm bill. We did not kick the can down the road. We passed a bill, working together, that provides the certainty America's farmers and ranchers need to continue supporting rural jobs and putting food on our tables. So there is absolutely no excuse for Congress to adjourn without sending this bill to the President's desk to be signed into law. Still, because the House refuses to even bring this bill up for a vote, it looks as though that is exactly what is going to happen. It is shameful. Passing the bill in the Senate was not easy; everyone had to make a compromise. But the farm bill touches on the lives of millions of Americans in every single State. It is too important not to act. The Senate's farm bill is true reform. We cut the deficit by more than $23 billion over 10 years. We streamlined programs to make them more efficient. We went back to the drawing board on commodity programs and created a true safety net--one that works for America's farmers as well as for the taxpayers--again, cutting the farm program by $23 billion. The House Agriculture Committee pushed out a bipartisan farm bill as well. I give the House Agriculture Committee a lot of credit. It is no secret that there are differences, but even to begin working out those differences the House needs to catch up, because despite having a bipartisan farm bill that passed the House Agriculture Committee, the House leadership is refusing to take it up. This isn't my first farm bill. I can tell my colleagues from personal experience that this action in the House body is unprecedented. House leadership has never blocked a farm bill that has been reported out of the House Agriculture Committee. On September 30, our farm safety net programs expire and the farm program expires--just 11 days from now. This is our last chance to give America's farmers and ranchers the certainty they deserve. This is also an opportunity to provide much-needed disaster assistance. Not long after we passed the farm bill in the Senate, a drought began to stretch across the United States. It was on the news virtually every night and has been for months. Wheat and cornfields have been drying up. Without enough forage, ranchers had to face the decision to either sell their herds or purchase extra feed, cutting into their very thin margins. As of this week, more than 2,000 counties have been designated as drought disaster areas by USDA, and 36 of them are in Montana. That is well over half of our State in a disaster. There is a consensus in Congress and across the countryside that something must be done, and the farm bill is that something. We had a bipartisan vote here in the Senate by a large margin and, as I mentioned, a bipartisan vote in the House Agriculture Committee. We have so many reasons to be grateful for the hard work of America's farmers and ranchers. They help sustain healthy rural economies. And because of the strength of America's agriculture, they put food on tables around the world. In 2011, agricultural exports reached $137 billion, with a record surplus of more than $42 billion. Agriculture supports 16 million jobs nationwide. In Montana, one in five jobs is tied to agriculture. The farm bill is our jobs bill. Last week many Montana farmers and ranchers came to town to talk about the farm bill. They each told me and other Senators and House Members the same thing: We need a farm bill, and we need it now. Three of those Montanans were Bing Von Bergen from Moccasin, Ryan McCormick from Kremlin, and Charlie Bumgarner from Great Falls. Bing, Ryan, and Charlie, similar to many Montana farmers, plan to go into the field next month to plant their winter wheat. They will be doing so with the current farm bill expired. They will be doing so with no certainty of what the farm programs will be--that certainty which community bankers happen to rely on to advance loans so farmers can plant. They do not want to see the farm programs expire. They do not want short-term extensions. They need the certainty of a full 5-year farm bill. I urge the House to listen to what farmers and ranchers across the country are saying: The time to pass the farm bill is now. Holding up a farm bill with wide bipartisan support is playing politics with the livelihood of our hard-working rural constituents. Instead, let's do our job so farmers can do theirs. Let us answer their calls and pass a 5-year farm bill now. Tribute to Russ Sullivan Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to tell you about a dedicated public servant and his son--Russ Sullivan and Alhaji Amadu Hassann, or AJ, as he was known by his family and friends. AJ died on July 28 of this year. But in his short life, he inspired people through his exuberance for life, his courage, and his determination. Born in Sierra Leone, west Africa, in 1992 during the midst of a brutal civil war, violence served as the backdrop to AJ's early childhood in Freetown, Sierra Leone. As a young boy, AJ, his mother, and two sisters were forced to flee their war-ravaged country to Guinea, where they found safety in a refugee camp. However, life in the refugee camp was difficult. There was no work for the adults, no formal schools for the children, and little hope for a better life. Unable to return to their homeland, their lives were put on hold for 8 years as refugees. But AJ remained hopeful for a brighter future. That day came in 2002, when their father, who was living in the United States, was able to bring AJ and his sisters to America. The children--15-year-old Ousmatta, 11-year-old AJ, and 9-year-old Laretta--moved in with their father in Virginia. However, their father had struggled in America. Similar to many who do not have steady work, he did not have health insurance. So when AJ's father got a tooth infection, he ignored it. Left untreated, the infection spread throughout his entire body and AJ's father died. An aunt tried to raise the three children on her own but had difficulty making ends meet. The children were split up. A cousin took in Laretta, Ousmatta stayed with their aunt, and AJ was taken in by a man named Russ Sullivan. Russ has long been serving as a foster parent in the community. He has mentored dozens of young men, becoming the legal guardian of some and helping hundreds see a different course for their life. Russ took in AJ. Then Russ took on additional responsibilities of becoming AJ's legal guardian. So who is this man Russ Sullivan? Russ Sullivan is the staff director of the Senate Committee on Finance. He is known in the Senate--as Senator Harry Reid has said--as ``a problem solver.'' Russ has developed a reputation for leadership, dedication, and respect for his colleagues. His staff admires him, his colleagues trust him and admire him, and I am honored to call him a friend. Nobody who has met and worked with Russ Sullivan has a different point of view. I have never heard anyone utter a criticism of Russ Sullivan, and no one ever will; he is that kind of man. Philosopher Thomas Carlyle once said: ``The work an unknown good man has done is like a vein of water flowing hidden underground, secretly making the ground green.'' That is Russ. His name is not in lights. People do not know about him. He is working to solve problems and make the ground green. Under Russ's nurturing care, AJ began to adjust to his new life in America. AJ had boundless energy and loved to play soccer. He was fun to be around, had a great sense of humor, made friends easily, and loved to flirt with the girls. AJ completed high school but had no intention of going to college. That was until Russ came into his life. In April 2011, AJ told a newspaper reporter that his life changed after meeting Russ. This is AJ: I was just going to do what everybody else was doing--drop out and get a job. But after I met Russ, everything changed about my mentality toward life. He started pushing me and getting me to think harder. . . . He's a great man, and I thank God I met him. . . . AJ first enrolled at Salem International University and after 1 year transferred to the University of West Virginia. He majored in sports management and loved being a ``Mountaineer.'' Then tragedy struck. In a senseless act of violence, AJ was assaulted in front of a local college hangout. He fell, hit his head hard--back, head snapped--and over the next few hours slipped into a coma. On Capitol Hill we were in the middle of deficit reduction negotiations. When Russ received the news about AJ, he rushed from Washington to West Virginia, where he stayed at AJ's side. Over the next month, Russ was traveling back and forth--back and forth--from West Virginia to Washington. This is during the supercommittee talks. Russ was juggling not only his career but also AJ's medical treatment. He was also forecasting what we could do. He was fostering several other boys--this is not the only boy Russ was a foster father for--and Russ kept working with the extended family and friends in the loop. He kept working with them and telling them and keeping them informed about AJ's condition. I often hear the media reports about Capitol Hill being dysfunctional--the sides are polarized and compromise is a dirty word. But when Chris Campbell, the Republican Senate Finance staff director, heard the news about AJ's injury, he enlisted his staff and the Republicans stepped up to help. They took Wednesdays. For the next couple months, Russ's boys--18 in total when they are all home from college; imagine, Russ Sullivan is the foster father for 18 different young men--knew that Wednesday night was pizza night, coming from the pockets of the Republican Finance Committee staff. ``Wednesdays'' was that night. AJ was moved from the West Virginia hospital to Children's Hospital and Rehabilitation Center in Washington, DC, where he remained for the next several months until his death in July. We mourn for the loss of this young man--who brought an incredible light to this world and light to Russ's world and to all who met him. He brought such a light in such a short period of time. We are fortunate to have Russ working on Capitol Hill. Russ epitomizes public service. He is honest. He is direct, upbeat, positive, looking for solutions, cutting through all the redtape. He always seeks to understand the arguments and keeps searching for the common ground--constantly. Senator Reid keeps asking me: Can Russ help here? What can Russ do about this, in trying to reach out to the other side to find an agreement. He has always been someone I respect and trust. He is also someone I have come to admire. Months have passed since AJ's death, but his zest for life remains in the hearts of those closest to him. Russ continues mentoring and helping others, changing lives one after another. Just last week, Russ witnessed a victory for another one of his boys. The boy had been wrongfully convicted of a crime and was facing deportation. But because of Russ's continued diligence and commitment, his innocence was proven and the conviction was overturned. That was just a few days ago. Harvard Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter once said: ``A vision is not just a picture of what could be; it is an appeal to our better selves, a call to become something more.'' Russ sees the vision of what could be and rolls up his sleeves to make it happen. I know I speak for all of us on the Senate Finance Committee--and many of us in this body as a whole--when I say: Thank you, Russ. Thank you for making us want to find our better selves, thank you for working to make the future better, and thank you for all you do. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. I say to the Senator, thank you very much. I know Russ deeply appreciates that, and we all do. I thank the Senator. Unanimous Consent Request--S.J. Res. 50

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Henry Ford once said, ``Anyone who stops learning is old, whether at twenty or eighty. Anyone who keeps learning stays young. The greatest thing in life is to keep your mind young.'' On October 12, 2012, Montana Tech in Butte, MT, will honor two people who embody that very spirit: Frank and Ann Gilmore. As reflected in their stories, both Frank and Anne recognize the importance of education and giving back to society. A Mississippi native, Dr. Frank Gilmore sought educational opportunities early and often. He was the first member of his family to earn a college degree. Frank's intellectual curiosity paved the way for an impressive academic career, one that includes studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University. Frank obtained a bachelor's degree in chemistry from Virginia Military Institute, and then went on to earn his Ph.D. in organic chemistry with a minor in industrial relations at MIT. His career in higher education began in 1967 at the University of Mississippi. Dr. Gilmore then taught at the West Virginia University Institute of Technology, and finally joined Montana Tech in 1998 as chancellor. Montana Tech has earned a reputation as one of the finest science, engineering, and technical colleges in the world, and much of its success can be attributed to the incredible leadership under Dr. Frank Gilmore. Under Dr. Gilmore's chancellorship, The Princeton Review selected Montana Tech as one of its ``Best 368 Colleges'' for 11 consecutive years. One of Dr. Gilmore's proudest accomplishments is improving Montana Tech's efforts to find students employment before they even graduate. During Frank's time as chancellor, Montana Tech boasted placement rates for its graduates between 93 and 98 percent. And, lucky for us, 70 to 80 percent of Tech graduates chose to remain and work in Montana. Frank's dedication to his students went far beyond the classroom. I proudly partnered with Montana Tech in 2007 and 2010 to organize the Montana Economic Development Summits. We could not have asked for a better host than Montana Tech. Frank proudly offered the campus to hold workshops and host some of the world's most influential business and economic leaders. The connections made at Montana Tech during those summits have yielded untold investment and job opportunities for Montanans. Not only is Dr. Gilmore's career in education inspiring, he also served his country with distinction in the military. He first served as a Marine Corps reservist when he was a teenager, then as an Active-Duty soldier in the Army, and finally as a captain in the Army Reserve. This past year, Frank was appointed as president of the Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation. The Goldwater Foundation was established to encourage college students to pursue science, math, and engineering. I proudly advocated for Dr. Gilmore's appointment, as I cannot think of anyone more qualified to lead these efforts. Ann Louise Gauthier Gilmore was also the first in her family to earn a college degree. She received her bachelor's degree in dietetics from the University of Northern Colorado. Like Frank, she also honorably served in our Nation's military. Ann joined the U.S. Army in 1961 and completed her dietetic internship at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC. She continued to serve our Nation in the Army Medical Corps until her honorable discharge in 1963 as a first lieutenant. Not only has Ann demonstrated a life-long commitment to education and to our country, she has directed her talents toward serving her community. Ann worked with the Women, Infants and Children, WIC, Program in Mississippi, the PEO, Philanthropic Educational Organization, a sisterhood committed to empowering women through education, and served on the board of the Butte Symphony Orchestra. Frank and Ann's stories give us hope that there are dedicated, hard- working folks in our schools, providing our children with the tools they need to succeed. In a world more competitive than ever before, it is essential that we provide all Montanans with a world-class education. Investing in Montana's young minds is the best way to keep us competitive with our global neighbors and to ensure a solid economic future. Thanks to the community's overwhelming generosity and support, Montana Tech constructed a new university center to honor Frank and Ann Gilmore. The new Frank & Ann Gilmore University Relations Center serves both students and alumni. The center provides a much-needed venue for students to meet their future employers, as well as place for alumni to convene and reminisce about their time at Montana Tech. As we all can see, both Frank and Anne possess an insatiable hunger for education which they have used to better their community. The University of Montana, the Butte and Anaconda communities, and especially the Montana Tech students, faculty, and staff, all know that with people like Frank and Ann, Montana will continue to become an even better place to live, work, and raise a family.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I strongly endorse the suggestions made by the majority leader as well as by the Senator from New Jersey and also thank the Senator from New Jersey for pushing these measures so aggressively, the cotton trust fund and wool, and also, to some degree, the citrus which is part of this. I support these provisions. I support the cotton trust fund, support it strongly. I am working diligently to try to find the right vehicles so we can get this passed--the cotton trust fund passed this year. I deeply appreciate the strong passion on this by Senator Menendez. He has come to me many times in looking for an opportunity to pass this. I deeply appreciate that. This place works on basic comity. Sometimes the pathways to get to a result are not well known and difficult to see, initially. But I am quite confident we are going to find a way to get this cotton trust fund passed this year. The Senator has my support to make that happen.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a remarkable Montanan and American. John W. Mahan, or Jack as we all knew him, died peacefully on Independence Day, July 4, at his home in Helena, MT. He was my neighbor and friend. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in honoring Jack and offering condolences to his family and loved ones. The Fourth of July was a fitting day for this World War II veteran and lifelong national veterans' advocate to leave this world. Majority leader Mike Mansfield, a veteran of World War I, once said that Jack Mahan ``has done more for the veterans of Montana and the nation than any other man I know.'' Jack was born into a family dedicated to national service. His father, John Senior, served as the national commander of the Disabled American Veterans as a brigadier general. John Senior later served as Montana's adjutant general. Jack's mother Iola served as president of the American Legion Auxiliary in Helena. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Jack enlisted in the Navy Air Corps. Jack went on to bravely serve as a dive bomber pilot in the Pacific during World War II. After the war, Jack took the lead on tackling challenges facing his fellow World War II veterans in Montana and across the country. Jack fought for bonuses for WWII veterans--a practice that was done after WWI to help get returning troops back on their feet. Although, the Montana Supreme Court declared these ``bonus'' payments unconstitutional, Jack worked with veterans groups and Montana officials to build popular support and eventually secured an ``honorarium'' payment instead of a ``bonus.'' Jack's ``honorarium,'' paid for by a 2-cent tax on cigarettes, raised $22 million for World War II veterans. In today's dollars, that is $226 million. In the late 1950s, Jack led the way in establishing the veterans hospital at Fort Harrison, west of Helena. Again, Jack worked with Montanans, veterans groups, and Members of Congress to raise $5.4 million to begin the first phase of building for the hospital. Today, Montana veterans still rely on the hospital in Fort Harrison for their basic medical needs. During his work, Jack met the acquaintance and earned the respect of Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford. Jack had a truly remarkable life and career of service to our country. He served as the national commander-in-chief of Veterans of Foreign Wars from 1958 to 1959. He served as the national chairman of the Veterans for John F. Kennedy's Presidential campaign committee in 1960. He also served as the under secretary to the VA Memorial Services and Director of the National Cemetery System in the Nixon administration. On this very day, we have brave Americans patrolling the mountains of Afghanistan. May Jack's memory be a reminder of the obligation we owe to these brave warriors when they come home. His legacy is a reminder of what dedicated public service can deliver for our Nation's finest. We will miss you, Jack.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I very much appreciate and admire the efforts of the Senator from Kentucky to keep proposing sanctions on Burma. In fact, the Senator will remember that 3 or 4 months ago I went out of my way to praise the Senator when he stood up for Burma. In fact, he may remember his press office called my office to say thank you. Gosh, Senator Baucus thanked the leader, and I meant it. I very much admire the effort and the way the Senator has undertaken to maintain these sanctions. We are all very proud of Aung San Suu Kyi for winning the Nobel Prize, in London, when she visited Europe not long ago. I remember watching her on television. She has done so much for her country and stood so much for the people of Burma. It is astounding. I have not had the privilege of meeting her personally, but I have watched her from afar and with great admiration and not only would thank her but again thank the Senator for his efforts. One can say the other matters are unrelated, but one could also say the Burma issue is riding along with the AGOA bill. There are thousands of African women who have lost their jobs because we have not acted on the AGOA bill, and they tend to be single moms--thousands--because they can't get orders to sell in the United States. Consequently, jobs in the United States now are in jeopardy because the AGOA bill has not been extended. It is true the AGOA bill does not expire until the end of September. That is true. However, as a practical matter, these women have lost their jobs already because American companies are not taking orders from African countries that are providing the apparel that are otherwise provided for under the AGOA bill. It is a huge issue for those African women who have lost their jobs as well as a lot of American companies that are in jeopardy because they can't receive the apparel from the African companies if this is not extended. I might say, too, the DR-CAFTA bill is similar. That puts in jeopardy a lot of jobs in South Carolina and North Carolina. So in a certain sense it is a jobs bill. Both these bills are important. They are very important. This package was put together and agreed to by Senators on the committee, Republicans and Democrats both. It was agreed to by leadership offices, both sides. We worked hard, as the leader often does, to get consensus around here. So this was the thought, to put the bills together, and all Republicans agreed. There was one Senator who said he had a problem with one of the pay- fors, and, frankly, it is a pay-for this body has adopted many times. That Senator himself has voted for this pay-for many times. It just seems to me, if we break up the package, then the package is broken and it puts in jeopardy those other provisions because Senators will want to offer amendments. The Senator from Kentucky well knows, once we start going down that road, things get hung up around here; the main point being these are both very important bills, and the other main point being it was agreed to. This package was agreed to all the way around, and I think at this point it does not make sense to break it up. So I object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not want to belabor the point. The Obama administration is opposed to splitting the package apart. They are in favor of keeping the package as it is, and I think for good reason because the administration favors both Burma as well as AGOA and DR-CAFTA. That is the reason. They are both very important. It is for that reason I think it makes sense. The Senator is correct. It is very easy to resolve this thing by proceeding with Burma and AGOA. But if the leader wants to keep talking, I am more than willing, over the next week, to see if there is another resolution to work this out.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is not what the Senator heard me say.

Mr. BAUCUS. Because the administration and I want them both.

Mr. BAUCUS. I am more than willing to sit down and try to work this out, but at this point I think any attempt to split them out is to jeopardize the AGOA bill, and as I mentioned earlier, there are already thousands of women who have lost their jobs in Africa because of our delay in passing AGOA.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I don't mean to belabor the issue. I see the Republican leader has left the floor. I have just a couple of points. One, I don't want the impression to be left here that this is a partisan matter. I don't want the impression to be left here that one party favors Burma sanctions and the other doesn't, and the same with respect to AGOA provisions. The fact is, these are both totally bipartisan. Both political parties favor these measures. It is just a matter of working out a way to pass them. The Senator from Delaware has made a very good point, so let's see if we can work things out within the next couple or 3 days. The Senator from Oklahoma makes a very valid point, too; that is, sometimes we pay for measures around here with measures that take several years to actually pay for. It is a common practice around here. And to say we have done it once does not necessarily mean it is right. But I say to my good friend from Oklahoma, who has voted for this kind of measure 11 times, by my count, and once even on the Burma bill, that when we work over the next several weeks and next several months on resolving the fiscal cliff and tax reform, it will be a good opportunity to find ways to reduce our budget deficits, both spending and revenue, and an opportunity to address it in a way that does not do violence to them and that respects the concept the Senator from Oklahoma was mentioning. He has mentioned a concept that applies not just with respect to customs user fees but for a lot of tax provisions around here, and I think it is something we should talk about and figure out how we want to handle it. But in the meantime, I just suggest that--let's keep talking. There are a few days left here before we leave for the August recess. I thank my colleagues for working together to try to find a solution. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object and would like to make a statement. I am basically opposed to the Senator's request, and let me explain why. The Finance Committee considered this bill last week, and we passed it out of committee by a voice vote without a single amendment being offered. Nobody on the committee offered an amendment. I think we cannot and should not delay the passage now. It passed unanimously, no amendments offered, and now is not the time to delay. This bill is fully offset. How? By extending customs user fees and corporate timing shift. This is not the first time we have used the corporate timing shift as an offset. I have a list--a very long list-- of the many times when this body has used this very same provision and very same offset. In fact, it has been used multiple times since 2005 in trade bills and lots of other bills, so there is much precedent. I, nonetheless, understand Senator Coburn now has concerns about the offset, and I am willing to work with him to find alternate offsets in future trade measures. We need to move forward on this bill in its entirety as soon as possible. We can't pick and choose to move forward on component parts while leaving others to linger. There are real consequences for delay. This bill extends provisions of the African Growth and Opportunity Act--otherwise known as AGOA--trade preference program that would otherwise expire in September. Without swift passage of this bill, U.S. retailers do not have the certainty they need to place orders with African apparel manufacturers. Not only are these U.S. companies struggling to make the best decisions for their companies, but a substantial drop in orders has caused devastating job losses in Africa. The job losses are occurring why? Because of the uncertainty as to whether this provision will be extended. Right now the Senator from Oklahoma suggests we don't proceed. Another provision of this bill closes a loophole in the Dominican Republic-Central American-United States Free Trade Agreement that will save almost 2,000 yarn-spinning jobs in North Carolina and in South Carolina. And the Burma sanctions provision expires today. These provisions are all necessary parts of the delicate compromise we negotiated in advance with the House and that the Senate Finance Committee approved. Ways and Means Chairman Camp in the House and Ranking Member Levin in the House have made it equally clear they will not pass this bill in the House without the AGOA provisions included. So the House will not pass these provisions if the Senator is successful. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to pass S. 3326 as it passed from the Finance Committee, quickly and without amendment. For those reasons, I must object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I very much understand the frustration of the Senator from Oklahoma, and I understand his reasons for objecting. In a perfect world, I might be sympathetic with his reasons, but this is not the perfect world. This is a world where we try to do our best to do our work and get legislation passed. I personally don't have a problem with the Senator's suggestion that we could set 30 minutes aside and vote on his amendment as an alternate way to pay. I think the Senator understands this bill is fully paid for already. It is just the Senator would like it paid for in a different way. The problem I have in trying to arrange all this and put it together is I can't control other Senators. Other Senators may object to the Senator's provision. They may have their own bills. In fact, I can think of two or three right now who would very much take advantage of a process where the Senator from Oklahoma strips out the bill and offers his own pay-for because they would say: Oh gosh, this is now an opportunity for me to offer mine. That is what they will say to themselves, and then we are really stuck because the Burma provisions expire, as the Senator knows, today. We can't dally. We can't wait. The AGOA provision expires at the end of September. Now, one could say: Well, wait until the end of September. Unfortunately, a lot of American companies are uncertain whether we are going to extend past the September 30 date, and they are laying off people. Lots of job losses are already occurring as a consequence of the uncertainty. So my job, in putting together these several bills-- including PNTR for Russia--in the committee was to talk to Senators and try to find an accommodation where we could get it passed. I totally agree with the Senator on his main point; namely, how much fraud and waste there is and that it should be addressed and how important it is to get the debt down. As the Senator knows, yesterday, in committee, we talked about ways to address the so-called fiscal cliff, the very beginnings of the Finance Committee's finding solutions to the debt and some kind of grand bargain in the form of tax reform. The Senator is correct. He did file amendments with alternative offsets, and I did state the amendments would be ruled nongermane. That is true. In my judgment, they were not germane. And he did suggest at that time that he wanted to offer an amendment on the Senate floor. As I said, I am not personally opposed to having a vote on the Senator's amendment as long as there is a limited time of debate. But I do think and believe others will object, and they will want to have their provisions passed. I just believe at this point it makes sense to proceed with AGOA, the DR-CAFTA bill, and the Burma bill, and deal with how we do offsets at a future date, not right now because it just gums up too much else.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying: I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts. There have been a number of inaccurate claims over the past several weeks accusing Democrats of proposing tax hikes. Nothing could be further from the truth. So let me set the record straight, as Lincoln said, and bring them the real facts. Democrats are proposing to extend a tax cut for 100 percent of taxpayers. Under the Democratic proposal, all taxpayers get a tax cut. Those lower income, those middle income, and those upper income all get a tax cut. Everyone does. Millionaires get a tax cut under the Democratic proposal, billionaires get a tax cut under the Democratic proposal, and all taxpayers who pay ordinary income tax are going to get a tax cut. Why is that? It is very simple. Because even if your income is above $200,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a family, you are still getting a tax cut for your first $200,000 of income or the first $250,000 of income. So you are getting a tax cut. Everybody is getting a tax cut. I want to make that clear: All Americans get a tax cut under the Democratic proposal. Even though the most wealthy are also getting a tax cut under the Democratic proposal, those on the other side of the aisle want to give an even greater tax cut to those earning above $200,000 as individuals or $250,000 as a couple. So let me repeat: Everyone gets a tax cut under the Reid bill. The other side of the aisle says: Okay, maybe that is so, but they want to give an even greater tax cut to those earning over $250,000. That is the fact. An awful lot of people think the Democratic bill does not cut taxes for those above $200,000 and $250,000. It does. It does. The facts are clear. The numbers don't lie. It does. Everyone gets a tax cut. So there should be no question about that. As I said, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are threatening to oppose a middle-income tax cut, which actually is a tax cut for everybody. They say, oh, no, don't do that. They say, do that, but then add a greater tax cut for those top 2 percent of the wealthiest of Americans. But let's go back and ask ourselves why are we here, in part? These tax reductions were instituted in 2001, at a time when our country had record surpluses. I think the total tax cut in 2001 was projected to be about--I may be off a little here--$1.5 or $1.6 trillion over 10 years, at a time when our Nation had a projected surplus of about $3 trillion or up to $5 trillion. I have forgotten exactly, but it was way above the 2001 tax cut. That is why, in large part, the 2001 Congress decided, well, we have these big projected surpluses, so let's give some of it back to the people. I voted for it. That is why I voted for it. It made sense to me--with the great projected surpluses--to take a little less than half of that and give it back to people in terms of tax cuts. But times have changed. In the wake of two wars that have cost over $1 trillion, unpaid for--Iraq and Afghanistan--and also the 2008 financial collapse that very much hurt our economy, times have changed since 2001. As a consequence, our Nation now is faced with record debt, and we cannot continue to spend money we don't have. We have to put our Nation back on solid fiscal ground. So a lot has happened since 2001. In addition, something else has happened, regrettably. Today, the average household income indexed for inflation is lower than it was when the tax cuts for the wealthy were put into effect. This means more people are making less money now than they were when these cuts were signed into law. Today, American families have less money to spend on their mortgages, gasoline, and groceries, for example. Actually, including benefits, Americans are not as well off as they were 10, 15 years ago. These cuts were enacted in 2001 for all Americans. Those top two rates for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans has cost future generations nearly $1 trillion. I think it is bad economics to continue these highest income tax cuts without evidence they actually solve America's economic woes. They don't. It is especially bad economics when our Nation's debt has increased by $10 trillion since they were first enacted. Hard choices need to be made as we work to get our debt back to sustainable levels. We are all going to be asked to contribute. We need to make sure the most fortunate pay their fair share to deficit reduction as well. Again, they are already getting a tax break under the Democratic proposal. Everyone gets a tax cut under the Democratic proposal, but it is wrong to go further and say those making above $250,000 should be getting an even greater tax cut. With a greater contribution from them, we could more easily work to get our Nation's debt down to manageable levels. Some have argued we cannot let the tax rates expire for the wealthiest Americans--the top 2 percent--because they are ``small business owners.'' Let me address that and marshal the facts, as Abraham Lincoln would ask us to do. Being wealthy is not the same as being a small business owner. One can be very wealthy in America but not be a small business owner. Some might have us believe there are 1 million small business owners earning over $200,000 a year. How do they get that number? They get that number from an estimate prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a bipartisan group that gives us accurate data--both Republicans and Democrats, Senators and House Members. The Joint Committee predicts that in 2013 there will be about 940,000 taxpayers with some business income in the upper two tax rates. But that Joint Committee estimate isn't the number of small businesses. That is a different number. Instead, it is the number of all individuals in the top two rates who receive any amount of income, from a passthrough business or from rental real estate, royalties, estates or trusts. That number of 940,000 taxpayers does not tell us whether the taxpayer spent any amount of time actually working in the business or if that taxpayer is merely an investor sitting on the sidelines. In addition, that number does not tell us whether the income is from a large business or from a small business. It can be a large business passthrough. So that number of 940,000 doesn't tell us is it large or is it small. It does not tell us if the business actually even employs anybody. We don't know that. There are a lot of taxpayers at that bracket who don't employ anybody. They are not small businesspeople. So that 1 million number being thrown around includes taxpayers who, for example, invest in publicly traded partnerships which can be purchased on the New York Stock Exchange similar to any other stock. They are not small businesses as ordinary Americans think them to be. The 1 million number also includes celebrities and sport stars who receive income from speaking engagements. They are not small businesspeople, but yet they are lumped into that same number. Americans wouldn't regard sports celebrities as a small businessperson. That is not right. That 1 million number also includes best-selling authors receiving royalties for book sales. That 1 million number includes partners in law firms and hedge funds who receive their income as a share of a partnership distribution. They are not a small business. The 1 million number also includes wealthy individuals who rent out their vacation homes for just a few weeks a year. Both President Obama and Governor Romney would be considered small business owners in 2011 under this definition. I wouldn't think they are small businesspeople, Americans don't think they are small businesspeople, but they would be included in the definition the other side bandies about. In reality, only a very small fraction of the top earners actually own or control or manage a business that is small and has hired anyone. I have forgotten the exact number, but it is a small number. It isn't sound fiscal policy to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans just because a small portion of them have income from a business and a tiny portion of them manage a small business. But that is what some would have us believe. I don't have the number with me, but it is very small. There aren't very many at all. Finally, the argument that higher taxes on the wealthiest hinders job creation is tenuous at best. Why do I say that? I say that because even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that extending the high income tax cuts for those in the top two rates was the least effective way of creating jobs among a list of alternatives commented on by the Congressional Budget Office. As I recall, the top of the list were items such as payroll tax. If we cut the payroll tax, that is a big job creator. If we extend unemployment insurance benefits, that is a big job creator. Down at the bottom of the list of job creation on a dollar-for-dollar basis is extending the 2 percent top rates. That creates very few jobs, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Actually, it hurts job creation, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Why? It found that extending the high income tax cuts actually reduces the gross domestic product and the number of jobs over 10 years. Why? Because doing so increases the deficit. The CBO said that actually extending the top two rates is a job reducer, not a job creator--a job reducer--because it would add to the deficit and, in doing so, all things being equal, would lose jobs. So despite efforts to hide behind small businesses, the fundamental question is, What is fair? What is best for our country? Should we drive up deficits further, reducing growth as a result by extending the tax cuts for the top 2 percent? Don't forget, we are already reducing their taxes under the Reid bill. Should we tame our deficits by ending Medicare as we know it and cutting important social programs to the bone? The more those top two rates are extended, the more we have to cut someplace else. It is just mathematics. It is a choice we have to make in our country. There is no free lunch. We know that. We can't have our cake and eat it. Life is choices. Our fiscal situation needs choices. We have to decide what makes the most sense or should we control our deficits through a balanced approach that thoughtfully cuts spending and ask the wealthiest 2 percent to contribute no more than they did 11 years ago? Clearly, as we reduce our debt and try to cut spending, there is no question about that. There is also no question that there has to be some combined income tax increase along with the spending cuts to be able to reduce our budget deficit. The answer is clear: We should vote for Leader Reid's bill and continue down the path toward responsible deficit reduction. I wish to make the point again, if it wasn't clear. The Reid bill reduces tax rates for all Americans, middle income and upper income, because we have a marginal rate system. The most wealthy have to pay in the 10- percent bracket, then they pay in the 15-percent bracket, then they pay in the 25-percent bracket, then they pay in the 28-percent bracket, all the way up to the top bracket today which is 35 percent. They pay in all brackets. So what we are saying is we are going to reduce your taxes; we are going to make sure you stay at those low rates for the next year so you, therefore, are going to pay less in income taxes, even if one is a billionaire. Let's go with the Reid bill. It is fair. It is the right course. I hope the Senate adopts it and we get enough votes--60 votes--to get this passed. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kirk Porter, Andras Varhelyi, Talitha James, Alison Albers, and Eric Hageman, staff of the Finance Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 3412.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I would like to say a few words about the next vote, which is the Cantor amendment. The Cantor amendment, just to review, would give a 20-percent deduction to all businesses that employ fewer than 500 people. The 20- percent deduction is calculated on U.S. source business income and is limited to 50 percent of the W-2 wages paid. In other words, the business must be paying at least twice the amount of the deduction in wages. In addition, taxpayers cannot get both this deduction and the 90-percent manufacturing deduction; the main point being this Cantor bill is a gross giveaway. It gives businesses a 20-percent deduction for simply earning income. They do not have to do anything, just earn income and get a 20-percent deduction. The amendment allows businesses to avoid paying taxes on about one- fifth of their profits as long as they employ fewer than 500 people. That is virtually 99 percent of all American companies. Worse still, it provides a temporary reduced tax rate. This would incentivize businesses to defer making investments, hiring new employees or increasing wages in order to increase profits. That is because the larger the profits, the larger the tax deduction under this bill. Rather than creating jobs or investing in business, the Cantor bill incentivizes the opposite. It incentivizes businesses to sit and wait rather than to invest in people or equipment. It does not make any sense to spend $46 billion for only 1 year of the provision, as proposed in this bill. This is a giveaway, frankly, to almost all companies--99.6 percent of the companies in the United States--to hedge funds, to partnerships, and private equity firms. Almost all employ fewer than 500 employees. It is absolutely the wrong policy for this Nation to adopt. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.