Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think minds are made up. I just suggest that both sides yield back the remainder of the time and vote.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Mother Teresa once said, ``Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies.'' Small businesses matter; they are the store fronts in our main streets; they are the idea creators in our technology sector; and they are the employers of our people. In Montana small businesses matter even more, since small firms make up 97.6 percent of our employers and create almost 70 percent of the private-sector jobs. We know small businesses are hurting because we see the job numbers. True, unemployment rates are holding steady, but we need to do better. Monthly job growth hit its highest point in 20 months in January, creating 275,000 new jobs. But job growth slowed substantially to 77,000 in April and 69,000 in May--its lowest point since May of last year--and 80,000 in June. Similarly, U.S. GDP grew by 3.0 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011 but has slowed to 2.2 percent for the first quarter of 2012. We need to give businesses the boost they need to take the risk in hiring that additional employee or investing in that additional piece of equipment. The Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act introduced by Senator Reid does just that. It gives businesses a 10-percent tax credit for increased payroll, allows businesses to write-off 100 percent of their business purchases made this year, and expands the ability of businesses to claim an AMT credit in lieu of bonus depreciation. The hiring credit makes it cheaper for small businesses to employ workers or raise wages. The extension of bonus depreciation would help small businesses that purchase equipment to write off those purchases more quickly. The proposal would also help the businesses that sell the equipment. Bonus depreciation sparks investment, increases cash flows, and creates jobs. These measures work because they provide incentives. They require companies to do something beneficial in order to obtain the corresponding tax benefit--either to hire American workers or invest in capital in the United States. The Reid bill is in stark contrast to that offered by Representative Cantor. His small business jobs bill is a mere giveaway. It gives businesses a 20 percent deduction for simply earning income. The Cantor bill allows businesses to avoid paying taxes on one-fifth of their profits as long as they employ fewer than 500 people and pay twice the amount of the deduction in wages. But rather than creating jobs or investing in business, the Cantor bill incentivizes the opposite. Because it provides a temporary reduced rate, the Cantor bill incentivizes businesses to defer making investments, hiring new employees or increasing wages in 2012 in order to increase profits. That is because, the larger the profits, the larger the tax deduction under the Cantor bill. That does not make sense for what we need as a Nation. Those businesses that need the boost are those that may be struggling to make a profit right now. Indeed, this could be a risk-taking retailer or technology start-up that may not have any income at all this year. Those businesses would not be helped by Representative Cantor's proposal. Nor does it make sense to spend $46 billion for only 1 year of the provision as proposed by Representative Cantor. We should be working to create certainty for our small businesses-- reducing tax rates for all businesses without magnifying budget deficits or exacerbating our long-term fiscal challenges. We should oppose the Cantor bill and support the Reid bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to turn to discussing the vital contributions of staff who worked on this bill. We are very fortunate in the Senate to be able to rely on the expertise and the support of so many talented and dedicated staffers whose efforts enabled us to finalize this conference report. This bill turned out to be unique because it spanned so many different issues. In addition to the ones I have already mentioned, my staff also had to work on pension matters, flood insurance, Federal trust funds, labor, and a range of other issues. All of this combined to make this a very complicated bill with many moving parts. Accordingly, I want to take this opportunity to publicly and professionally thank the following staffers for guiding this bill through markups in different Senate committees, negotiating with counterparts from the House of Representatives, and getting us over the finish line with a conference report that provides the American people with the good policies included in this bill: There was Tom Lynch, who worked on both the Environment and Public Works Committee's portion of the bill and the Finance Committee's portion. Tax Counsel Ryan Abraham, whose work along with Tom Lynch on the highway trust fund was key to being able to fund highways and transit projects under the bill. Tom, Ryan, and Lily Batchelder, chief tax counsel and head of Finance Committee's tax team, held more than 20 staff meetings with Democrats and Republicans before our Finance Committee markup. Mark Hybner, who was critical to refining the Indian Reservation Roads Program among other things, a program that is very important to the seven tribes in my State. Tax and benefits counsel Tom Reeder, a true seasoned professional without whom we couldn't have found the essential offsets to ensure the highway trust fund would remain solvent. Spencer Gray, who shepherded the secure rural schools and payment in lieu of taxes through this process. Dave Hughes and Ann Cammack, who made critical contributions both to raise revenue and in tracking policy. Sean Morrison and Blaise Cote, the Finance Committee's two excellent research assistants. Heather O'Loughlin, easily one of the most versatile and capable staffers working in the Senate, who was key both to the education and the flood insurance portions. Amber Cottle, Bruce Hirsch, Gabriel Adler, Hun Quach, Chelsea Thomas, and Rory Murphy, who were very helpful in the effort to develop offsets during the Finance Committee markup. Department of Transportation detailee and Billings Montana native Avital Barnea, who lent helpful assistance at a crucial time. Jeffrey Arnold, who was very helpful in assisting on Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation provisions and phased retirement. Intern extraordinaire Pete Markuson, who logged a lot of meaningful hours. The outstanding press team of Jenny Donohue, Meaghan Smith, Ryan Carey, Kate Downen, Kathy Weber, and our newest addition, Sean Neary. And my indispensable leadership staff of Jon Selib, Russ Sullivan, and Paul Wilkins, who as always remained focused and unflappable despite the challenges. Finally, I also want to use this opportunity to thank Bettina Poirier, David Napoliello, Andrew Dohrmann, and Grant Cope from Chairman Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee staff; Ruth Van Mark, James O'Keeffe, Murphie Barrett, Kyle Miller, Dmitri Karakitsos, and Alex Renjel from Senator Inhofe's staff; Charles Brittingham with Senator Vitter; Tyler Rushforth with Senator Reid; Ellen Doneski, James Reid, Ian Jefferies, Rich Swayze, Richard Russell, and Bailey Edwards from the Commerce Committee; and Chris Campbell, Mark Prater, Jim Lyons, Nick Wyatt, and Preston Rutledge from the Finance Committee. Without the individual and collective contributions of each one of these people I have mentioned, we would not have pulled this off. For them and their efforts to help support American jobs, all of us should be very grateful.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment and frustration that the Work Incentives Planning and Assistance program also known as WIPA run by the Social Security Administration is being shut down today. Congress has not acted to extend this important program and the Commissioner of Social Security does not believe he has the authority to continue the program. I disagree. I think he could continue this program under his broad authority to implement the Social Security Act. It is my belief that if he did that and that was contrary to congressional intent, Congress would express that disapproval through the appropriations process. Let me explain what the WIPA program does. Both the Social Security disability insurance, SSDI, program and the supplemental security income, SSI, program have many provisions to assist beneficiaries in attempting to return to work, but the rules and features of the work incentives are complex and can be intimidating. Through the WIPA program, SSA makes grants to community-based organizations to provide SSDI and SSI disability beneficiaries with assistance in navigating and using the return-to-work features. The total budget for the WIPA grant program is $23 million a year. Because it is such a large State, Montana has two WIPA grantees. The Montana Center for Inclusive Education at Montana State University in Billings is the WIPA specialist for residents of eastern Montana. Over the last 30 months, the WIPA in MSU Billings has served over 100 Montana residents. On the western side of the State, the North Central Independent Living Services, Inc., near Great Falls runs an innovative program where the WIPA grant is dispersed among several Centers for Independent Living in order to provide more personal, one-on-one service for residents of Montana. That program has served over 220 Montana residents. I think the WIPA program should continue. I know many Members of Congress agree. I hope the Commissioner will continue these important programs as soon as possible. Given the state of the economy today, we should not limit important services that can help our constituents who want to help themselves by attempting to work.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I agree with my good friend, the majority leader, that this farm bill is a reform bill. And I would like to answer your questions about how it addresses--or struggles to address--multi-year price declines. I worked very closely with Chairwoman Stabenow, through the Senate Agriculture Committee markup this spring, along with my colleagues, Senators Conrad and Hoeven, to ensure the Agricultural Risk Coverage program worked for farmers in the Northern Great Plaines--not just the Midwest. I commend the Chairwoman for working with me through that markup, and supporting my amendment which improved the farm level coverage option and her commitment for continued work to improve the bill for grain farmers in my home State of Montana. One of the lingering questions is what happens to the Agricultural Risk Coverage program should we have a few years of consecutive price collapses in the market. I agree that the Agricultural Risk Program should follow market signals, and I commend this bill for doing just that. But when the market fails, there has to be a failsafe to prevent our farm policy from driving off a cliff--taking jobs and food security with it. So although the bill is a step forward in creating a market-oriented safety net, it does not provide optimal protection for multi-year price declines. I filed an amendment which would have added price protection should we have multi-year price declines while ensuring it does not distort the marketplace. This is a remaining concern I have with the Agricultural Risk Coverage program and I ask the majority leader and Chairwoman Stabenow for the continued commitment to ensure any agreement which comes out of a conference report with the House addresses this weakness in the Agricultural Risk Coverage program.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, George Washington once said: The willingness of future generations to serve in our military will be directly dependent upon how we have treated those we have served in the past. Tomorrow, 95 World War II veterans will fly from Montana to Washington to see their memorial with their own eyes for the first time. This trip is made possible by the Big Sky Honor Flight Program. Their mission is to recognize American veterans by flying them to Washington, DC, to see their memorials at no cost. These veterans, and the volunteers who helped send them here, say a lot about what makes the United States of America the greatest country on Earth. Who are these veterans? Their average age is 90. They hail from all parts of our State--from Plentywood to Superior, from Miles City to Libby, and many places in between. Each veteran has a story to tell. Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Bill Smith left his job as an accountant in Billings and volunteered to fly B 24 Liberator bombers with the 466th Bomb Group. Bill went on to fly 30 missions over Europe from 1943 to 1945. He rose through the ranks and eventually took command of an entire crew. On a typical day, Bill and his crew would rise at 4 a.m., eat a quick breakfast, and receive a mission brief. As crew commander, Bill was responsible for seeing to it that the bomber safely navigated enemy airspace, accomplished its mission on time and on target, and returned to base safely. Bill's B 24 flew at 22,000 feet in subzero temperatures in nonpressurized cabins. Think about that. We are not talking about the cozy airplane cabins you and I are used to today. We are talking about open air, very loud and very cold cabins. Imagine, if one can, doing all that with Nazi fighters on your tail. In one instance, incoming enemy fire shot the oxygen mask right off the face of one of the gunners on Bill's crew. Bill is 96 now. When asked about his service, he said: I am proud of what we did. I know we hit a lot of targets. That's what we were there for. We weren't there for a joy ride. In March, I had the privilege of meeting Del Olson from Billings. Del was born and raised on a farm in Rapleje, Montana, which is a very small town. In 1944, Del joined the Women's Army Corps as an airplane mechanic. The Women's Army Corps was the first female unit, besides nurses, to serve within the ranks of the U.S. Army. They were patriots and trailblazers. Similar to all trailblazers, their service didn't come without controversy. Del didn't let the controversy get in the way of her mission. She dedicated herself to fixing up bomber aircraft in Texas, which was her job, including the B 24 Liberator that Bill Smith was flying over Europe. Later in the war, Del moved to Bakersfield, CA, where she worked as a nurse caring for the countless wounded warriors. Now, at age 92, when you ask Del about her service, she will tell you, ``I didn't do much during the war. Others did so much more.'' Del's humility is a testament to what real selfless service looks like. When Del visits the World War II memorial, she plans to pay her respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifice during the war. Del said she will think of her brothers, of her sister, who all served under General Eisenhower in Europe. She especially wants to honor her first and second husbands, both of whom served in the South Pacific during the war. I met with Del and talked with her about coming to Washington, DC, on the Honor Flight. She is such a special lady. When I talked to her, I said: Boy, Del, we have to make sure we raise enough money so you get a seat on the plane. She said: Oh, no, no, not me. There are others who are so much more deserving than I am. Not me. That is exactly the kind of selfless attitude she and others who served in World War II have. But she now has a seat. She will be back here in Washington, DC. The first event is tomorrow night, with a service earlier at the memorial tomorrow. But Honor Flights just don't happen automatically. It takes work--a lot of work. Kathy Shannon, Beth Bouley, Tina Vauthier, Chris Reinhard, Vicky Steven, Yellowstone County commissioner Bill Kennedy, and countless other volunteers have all been instrumental in organizing Montana's first Honor Flight. Students, friends, neighbors, and businesses pooled together more than $150,000 to make this happen. In today's tough times, when families are struggling to make ends meet, pooling together that kind of contribution is no small feat. This will be the first Honor Flight from Montana, but I know it won't be the last. I know because I have seen the passion and dedication of these volunteers firsthand. In March I had the incredible opportunity to pitch in by serving burgers at a fundraiser in Billings. It was a lot of fun. It was very inspiring seeing all these folks, inspiring to see our young Montanans demonstrating their spirit of service. For example, students from the Huntley Project Schools raised an amazing $2,425 to make this flight happen--just kids. In the process, they learned a valuable lesson about the sacrifices that made it possible for them to grow up strong and free in this country. This Honor Flight visit is larger than just a thank-you to our World War II veterans. It shows the commitment we Americans consider a sacred obligation to all our veterans--to those who served on the frozen battlefields of Korea, to the jungles of Vietnam, to the deserts of Iraq, and to those who on this very day are fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan. So I ask the Senate to join me in welcoming these heroes to our Nation's Capital this weekend. And a special thanks to all 18,000 World War II veterans living in Montana. We are forever grateful for your service and your sacrifice. I might add, Mr. President, that as we honor our veterans, especially those who served during World War II, it is a good reminder to all of us here who aspire to public service. In many cases, these veterans put themselves in harm's way, sacrificing themselves for their country, so the very least we can do here in the Senate is to remember our veterans who sacrifice so much, remember our Armed Forces today who serve us so well, and at the very least we should work together as a Senate, as a Congress, to solve the problems ahead of us and not be so partisan and so divisive, which is clearly not a public service. Citizens United Mr. President, before I conclude, I also would like to say a few words on another important topic impacting our democracy; that is, the freedom of a people to choose their own elected representatives. Today, the Supreme Court is considering a challenge to Montana's 1912 Corrupt Practices Act. One hundred years ago, Montanans said, in passing legislation, that elections should not be bought by the Copper Kings. Who were the Copper Kings? They were basically three very wealthy corporate titans trying to control copper production in the State of Montana, and they virtually controlled our State. Montanans said: No, elections should not be bought by copper kings or by any corporation. Today, we in Montana say the same thing. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United cleared the way for unlimited out-of-State corporations throughout the country. I applaud Montana's attorney general Steve Bullock for sticking up for Montanans as the Supreme Court takes a closer look at this case. I have introduced a constitutional amendment to limit corporate campaign expenditures, and I have supported every piece of campaign reform legislation that has come before me. As the Supreme Court looks at Montana's 1912 Corrupt Practices Act today, it is my hope that Montana can continue to lead the Nation in saying that elections belong in the hands of the people, not out-of- State foreign corporations. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two detailees from my office, Herrick Fox and Benjamin Thomas, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of debate on S. 3240, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to multiple amendments to the farm bill that would undermine critical support for American sugar producers and the American jobs they create. These amendments would pull the rug out from underneath sugar beet producers in my home State of Montana. It would leave farmers and other sugar industry workers in Montana and across the country vulnerable to job loss. In these tough economic times, this is a step backwards in job creation, and that is a step we can't afford to take. Montana is the fifth largest sugar beet-producing State in the Nation. In 2010, our cash receipts totaled more than $66 million, and those dollars mean good-paying American jobs. That is why the farm bill continues the vital support that helps America's sugar producers sustain more than 140,000 jobs and nearly $20 billion in economic activity every year. Our sugar policy is a proven investment in American jobs at no cost to the taxpayer. That is right. Let me repeat that. The U.S. sugar policy doesn't cost American taxpayers a single cent. So why in the world would we want to get rid of this proven job creator at a time when jobs should be our No. 1 priority? The policy does not restrict access to lower sugar prices for manufacturers, but it allows sugar producers from Montana and the rest of the United States to compete in the world market with access to less quality sugar, cheaper labor, and fewer regulations. Other countries very strongly protect their sugar industry. Some argue our Sugar Program, while not costing the American taxpayer directly, costs them indirectly at the grocery store. But let me be very clear: For every $1 candy bar bought at a grocery store, only 2 cents of that total cost is sugar. For every $1, only 2 cents of the cost of that candy bar is sugar. With no cost to the American people and proven benefits extending from rural farmers through the entire economy, this policy works. It is a lifeline to Montana's sugar beet farmers and the rural communities in which they live. I would not let us get rid of a policy that supports proven job creators at a time when we need jobs more than ever. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I wish to give my warm congratulations to my dear friend and fellow Montanan Nancy Keenan. Nancy announced recently that she would step down as President of NARAL Pro-Choice America to return to her home state of Montana for some well-deserved R & R. Nancy has served as president of NARAL for the past 8 years, devoting her time to protecting the rights of women across the country. Nancy has a storied career that epitomizes the tough female figures of Montana history. Nancy grew up in the blue-collar town of Anaconda, as one of five children in her Irish Catholic family. Her father was a boilermaker for the Anaconda smelter, and her mother worked as a clerk at the Marcus Daly Hotel and later at Thrifty Drug Store. Upon entering college, Nancy paid her way by taking a job at the smelter, becoming one of the first women laborers at the smelter. This was a tough and dangerous place to work, shoveling ore and handling big buckets of boiling copper. But Nancy took on the challenge with the tenacity that we friends have gotten to know very well. Her hard work paid off. Nancy became the first in her family to graduate from college. She obtained her bachelor's degree in elementary education from Eastern Montana College. Later she received her master's degree in education administration from the University of Montana. Nancy spent 13 years teaching special education in Anaconda. Nancy speaks fondly of her time growing up in Anaconda, and her desire to enter public service was shaped early in life. Nancy once told the story of the family discussing public service and political happenings while around the dinner table each night. She said, ``I remember my dad often posing problems. When my sisters, brothers, and I would protest, `But it isn't fair.' my dad would simply reply, `Then make it fair.''' Nancy did just that. Nancy was first elected to the Montana House of Representatives in 1983, and she served 6 years as a state legislator. In 1988, she was elected to statewide office as the Montana Superintendent for Public Instruction, a position she held until 2000. As a public official, she never shied away from the difficult issues. And Nancy's commitment to women's rights has been steadfast in her career. During Nancy's eight years at the helm of NARAL Pro-Choice, she has worked nonstop to protect women's right to choose. She is a fighter and one of the hardest workers you will ever know. She embodies the tenacity and savvy forged while working at the Anaconda Copper Smelter to pay for college. Nancy has inspired a new generation of leaders, particularly young women, and her dedication to Montanans throughout her life deserves our thanks and recognition. I congratulate Nancy as she enters the next chapter of her life and wish her all the best as she returns to Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Abraham Lincoln was no stranger to agriculture. He spent most of his early years on farms. Many years later, he signed into law legislation that created the Department of Agriculture, which just recently celebrated its 150th anniversary. President Lincoln understood American agriculture. He said: The man who produces a good full crop will scarcely let any part of it go to waste. He will keep up the enclosure about it, and allow neither man nor beast to trespass upon it. He will gather it in due season and store it in perfect security. Thus he labors with satisfaction, and saves himself the whole fruit of his labor. Those timeless words ring true today, and they will ring true tomorrow. American farmers and ranchers are the most productive and efficient in the world. Their hard work creates good-paying jobs in Montana and across the Nation. In fact, one in five Montana jobs is tied to agriculture. But President Lincoln's observations also apply to many other walks of life, including work in the Senate. Under the leadership of Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts, we have cultivated a farm bill for tomorrow. We must not let that hard work go to waste. They have worked very hard, very closely together, cooperating. It is a good farm bill. This legislation achieves what many thought impossible: It creates a market-oriented safety net that works for American farmers, strengthens crop insurance, and streamlines conservation programs, while still contributing $23.6 billion to deficit reduction. That is right. This reduces the deficit by about $23.6 billion. That is over 10 years. Direct payments have their place in farm program history, but in light of necessary spending reductions, it was clear we could not continue with the status quo. So the Senate Agriculture Committee worked closely with farmers and ranchers across the country to create a program for a real safety net--one that only pays farmers who actually experience a loss. Farming is an extremely capital-intensive industry, and our farmers often work with paper-thin profit margins. Even the best farmer is left at the mercy of chance--historic droughts, catastrophic floods, price collapses, and so much more. This new revenue program will make sure there is stability and predictability for our farmers from year to year. Our comprehensive farm policy contributes to overall security in American agriculture. That is why we spend less on food than any other country in the world. Americans spend less than 7 percent of their disposable income to feed their families--7 percent--compared with almost 25 percent in 1930. But it is more than just food security. As a net exporter of agricultural products, Montana farmers and ranchers create good-paying jobs and quite literally grow wealth and prosperity from our fertile soils. The shallow-loss revenue program, combined with the same crop insurance products we have fine-tuned over the decades, creates a fiscally sound safety net. This is the fruit of our labor, and we must keep this intact. We improved much more than just the commodity title. We saved $6 billion in the conservation title without compromising the policy. We did this by consolidating 23 existing programs--consolidating them all together--creating 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. For livestock, I made sure we extended and made permanent the livestock disaster programs that I worked hard to include in the last farm bill. Since they were created in 2008, the three livestock programs have helped over 100,000 ranchers across the country. Right now, we are experiencing historic droughts in regions of the United States that also produce much of our beef. The livestock disaster programs will help those ranchers stay in business until the rain starts falling again. In the forestry title, we permanently authorized stewardship contracting. This is very important. This will help the timber industry sustainably harvest more trees. This permanent authority is critical for reducing wildfire risk and maintaining resilient landscapes and communities throughout our country. As I advocated prior to markup, these returns are well worth the small investment. It can keep companies such as F.H. Stoltze, which is celebrating 100 years in operation in Columbia Falls, MT, in business for another 100 years. I also was pleased with the inclusion of a workable approach to the bark beetle epidemic spreading throughout Montana and the West. My colleague from Montana, Senator Tester, has also worked to remedy this epidemic. Our loggers and small timber mills in Montana are facing the second worst beetle kill in the lower 48, a Forest Service tied up in lawsuits, and a housing market that continues to drag. Sawmills such as those owned by R-Y Timber in Townsend and Livingston will benefit from the approach we take in this farm bill. I was also very proud of the work the committee did for veteran farmers and ranchers. Not only did the committee accept my amendment to expand access to conservation programs to veterans, but it also will direct USDA to set up a military liaison position. These strides to extend assistance to veteran farmers and ranchers are vital to our returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who hope to return to rural America and become involved in agriculture. Forty-five percent of those who serve in the military come from rural communities. The farm bill provision makes it clear that both efficient authorities and adequate resources are crucial for this effort, and I am committed to enacting legislation that enables the decisive and responsible action that is urgently needed. There is a lot of talk on Capitol Hill about creating jobs and cutting debt. The farm bill is our jobs bill. It is also responsible to taxpayers. If we Senators were farmers, I would say we have produced a pretty good crop with this bill. But that is not the final step. All farmers know there is a time for harvest. Now is harvest time. It is time to pass this farm bill. If we wait too long, we run the risk of compromising the stability of American agriculture and our food supply. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two detailees from my office, Herrick Fox and Benjamin Thomas, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on S. 3240, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Department of Agriculture. I believe Thomas Jefferson said it best in a letter to George Washington in 1787. Jefferson wrote: ``Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals, and happiness.'' In 1862, the 37th Congress and President Lincoln established the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and 150 years later, agriculture is still a pillar of the American economy. From wheat fields in Montana, to dairy farms in Wisconsin, to grocery stores in New York City, 1 in 12 jobs is linked to agriculture and forestry. In Montana it is one in five for agriculture alone. Agriculture is one of the few U.S. business sectors to boast a trade surplus of $34 billion last year. Because of our Federal farm policies, Americans have access to the safest and most affordable food in the world. Americans spend less than 7 percent of their disposable income to feed their families, compared with almost 25 percent in 1930 or as high as 28 percent in Russia today. The farm bill, which is set to expire this September, provides a responsible risk management system that ensures American farmers and ranchers can keep putting food on our tables even in times of drought, flooding, and other disaster. It provides conservation tools to protect the land we love and depend on for generations to come. It focuses resources to help beginning farmers and ranchers get their foot in the door, promotes U.S. products overseas, invests in research, and helps struggling families put food on the table. Last month, the Senate Agriculture Committee passed the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012 with a bipartisan vote of 16 to 5. I want to underscore the word ``reform.'' Times are tough. We cannot afford business as usual anymore. After spending the last year talking directly with Montana farmers and ranchers about their priorities, I can tell you no one understands this better than they do. So the Senate Agriculture Committee worked directly with producers to strengthen what works and cut out what doesn't. Together we came up with a responsible plan to cut spending by $23 billion while still providing a strong risk management program for farmers and ranchers. That is right, the Senate Agriculture Committee's farm bill reduces the deficit by $23 billion. It eliminates more than 100 duplicative programs to make government leaner and more effective. It strengthens accountability to make sure we are giving a hand up where it is most needed and not wasting taxpayer dollars where it's not. And, perhaps most importantly, this farm bill supports more than 16 million American jobs. That is why I led a letter to leadership with 43 of my colleagues this week urging quick action. Moving this farm bill is the right thing to do for our farmers and ranchers, the right thing to do for American taxpayers, and the right thing to do for jobs. So as we say happy birthday to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, I think the best gift Congress could give is passing the farm bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I note the Senator from Massachusetts has a very tight schedule and a close timeline to catch a flight overseas. I think it appropriate that I defer to the Senator from Massachusetts. He has a very tight schedule, and I can wait a little longer.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Massachusetts for taking so much time to praise a person who clearly deserves praise, who has worked so hard for him and for the people of Massachusetts and for her country. Clearly, Mary is an incredible lady. Mr. President, my ``Mary'' is Maureen. Maureen, too, is someone who started working for me when she was very young--17 years old. In 1974, 1975--I do not know exactly when--I was hiring people, and this young girl came to my office. I could tell--this young girl knows the meaning of work. She is Catholic, Irish Catholic, and this lady knows the meaning of hard work. I hired her on the spot. She is my office manager. She is with me even to this date. She is tough. She is smart. She organizes. She is the glue. She is a super lady. We all have our ``Marys.'' We have our ``Maureens.'' And at this moment, I want to praise Mary and Maureen but also all those who work so hard for us in so many different capacities. Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act Mr. President, renowned poet and author Maya Angelou wrote: History with all its unending pain cannot be outlived, but faced with courage need not be lived again. I stand here today to once again lend my strong support--I voted for it, as a majority of our colleagues did--for the Violence Against Women Act. Nearly two decades ago, the Congress underwent an exhaustive investigation on the extent and severity of domestic violence and sexual assault toward women in this country. In hearing after hearing, Senators heard from experts, including prosecutors, victim advocates, and physicians, and real-life stories of women who were the victims of these crimes. In response, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. This law quite literally changed the culture in our country. It changed how we view and address domestic violence and sexual assault. States across our country began to enact laws to make stalking a crime and strengthened criminal rape statutes. Congress provided States with the resources to train law enforcement and coordinate services related to domestic violence and sexual assault. Despite the progress we have made, our work is not done. One in every four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime. In my home State of Montana, 98 people died from domestic violence between 2000 and 2010. These are not simply statistics, they are our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our friends--they are people close to us. Since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, reporting of domestic violence has increased by 51 percent and the rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by 53 percent. Congress renewed this critical legislation in the year 2000 and again in 2005. Both measures included improvements, and both of those passed the Senate unanimously. We are here today to reiterate our commitment to addressing violence against women, including domestic abuse, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. I was struck recently by the story in the Billings Gazette of Maria Martin. Maria was a victim of partner abuse. In the year 2005, the man she was dating went into a jealous rage. He held her hostage in her own home with a knife to her throat. He also threatened to kill her three daughters. Charges were filed, and this man is now serving a 61-year prison term. Maria went on to earn her master's degree in rehabilitation and mental health counseling. She now helps others who find themselves in the situation she was in just a few short years ago. Maria told the reporter that programs created under the Violence Against Women Act provided her with the resources and support to overcome her situation. The act helped her to find the courage she needed to see that this painful experience did not have to be lived again--with its counseling, shelter for abused women, and law enforcement counseling for law enforcement so they can be more sensitive to women who are victims of domestic violence. The bipartisan reauthorization renews grant programs critical to Montana, including those that support law enforcement, victim services, and prevention programs. The bill consolidates 13 programs, many of which overlap, into 4. This consolidation reduces administrative costs and adds efficiency. Acknowledging the current fiscal realities, the bill, therefore, reduces authorization levels by 17 percent overall. It is more effective, and it costs less. The bill also makes critical changes to address the pervasive domestic violence occurring in Indian Country. Native Americans represent about 6 percent of Montana's population-- about 6 percent. Yet Native women accounted for over 13 percent of victims reporting domestic violence in my State in the year 2008--more than two times the percentage. According to the Department of Justice, Native women are 2\1/2\ times more likely to be a victim of rape or sexual assault compared with non- Native women. However, it is the Federal courts, not the tribal courts, that have jurisdiction over many of these crimes, including misdemeanor cases. With Federal prosecutors stretched thin, especially in large rural States such as Montana, many cases go uninvestigated and criminals walk free to continue their violence with no repercussions. Chairman Leahy's bill carefully crafts a measure to extend concurrent criminal tribal jurisdiction to address the issue of domestic violence and partner abuse occurring in Indian Country. These provisions will give tribal courts narrow jurisdiction to prosecute domestic violence or dating partner violence occurring on tribal land. The bill, however, provides safeguards to those who might be defendants. It provides safeguards to ensure that the defendant receives all rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. This includes fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel--all guaranteed in this statute. Fifty law professors from across the country, including the University of Montana, wrote to Chairman Leahy in support of these provisions and Congress's constitutional authority to extend tribal jurisdiction. These provisions will begin to address the violence against Native women that ``has reached epidemic proportions.'' Maya Angelou is right that we cannot erase the past and what happened to Maria and others like her. But Maria's courage is proof that we can change these circumstances for others--to see that no one has to live through this experience. Maria said--and I will quote her: I am alive today because I am a strong, intelligent woman. I need to stand up, step out, and be in front of this issue for others who can't or are not able to--yet. I urge my colleagues to support me in making sure that this act follows through in negotiations with the House and that we get this reauthorization passed that is so important to so many people in our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, tomorrow 145 Montana Guardsmen will kiss their husbands and wives, hug their children, say goodbye to their friends, and get on a plane from Billings, MT to Afghanistan. Two weeks from today 95 more Montanans will do the same. Together these 240 Montana Guardsmen are in the long line of thousands of Montanans to deploy since 9/11. More Montanans signed up for service after 9/11 than any other State in the country per capita. Since then, 6,668 Montana Guardsmen were deployed. Montana's Guard has deployed at among the highest rate in the country. Each and every deployment requires enormous sacrifices from the Guardsmen themselves, their families holding down the fort at home, their employers, and entire communities. They make these sacrifices quietly. They perform their missions with excellence, professionalism, and without bragging. So I want to do a little bragging on their behalf and salute each and every one as they prepare for combat. The 484th Military Police Company leaving tomorrow is based in Malta, Glasgow, and Billings. Their mission will be to help train the Afghan national police. They will be immersed in the Afghan culture, working hand in hand with the local officers deep in the heart of the city precincts. What an incredibly important and challenging task, and they are ready. They have been training hard for this job for more than a year. Many of them will bring invaluable experience in civilian law enforcement that will be critical to this mission. The 260th Engineering Support Company will also leave Montana April 30 for a year-long tour in Afghanistan. The unit is from Miles City, Culbertson, and Sidney. They will perform the dangerous mission of clearing explosives off roads and protecting U.S. convoys from Taliban attacks. The 95 members of this unit have received specialized explosive training and they are ready to go. This past February 60 members of the Bravo Company 1st of the 189th General Support Aviation Brigade left Helena for a tour in Afghanistan. Their unit flies and maintains six CH 47 Chinook helicopters and has a lifeline of supplies, ammunition, food, and water for air troops. They help get the troops where they need to go to accomplish their missions quickly and safely. Last March, 12 Montana Guardsmen returned from duty in Iraq and Kuwait. They flew C 12s, getting troops where they needed to go to accomplish top-priority missions. In 2011, nearly 100 Montana troops deployed again to Iraq. They were Charlie Company 1st of the 189th, and they were among the last of the combat troops on the ground. They provided medevac support for the famous road march that brought our troops out of Iraq from Camp Adder, near Nasiriyah, to the Khabari border crossing into Kuwait. In 2010, more than 600 Montana Guard troops served in Iraq, and thousands more had deployed there in previous years. Our Air Guard has been busy. In 2010, 99 members of the Red Horse squadron, an engineer unit, spent a year working in Afghanistan. They built about every kind of structure you can imagine to support the mission on the ground, from fixing airfields, so our troops could land and take off safely, to constructing observation towers vital to intelligence on the ground, to drilling wells to bring water to some of the most dangerous parts of the country. At the same time, dozens of Montana airmen have deployed to support the Air Sovereignty Alert in the Pacific. They are our first line of defense in the Pacific, on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. On top of all this, 53 Montana Airmen deployed individually to support missions over the course of the last year in Bahrain, Cuba, Djibouti, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, and a number of other locations around the world. The Guard has their mission at home as well. When flooding hit Montana last week, the Montana National Guard troops were some of the first folks to respond with a helping hand. When Highway 12 was washed out, the town of Roundup basically became an island. The Montana Guard was their bridge, carrying supplies back and forth. It is an understatement to say these guys are busy. They are volunteers, and they are balancing their military service with their civilian careers at home. We can't thank them enough for what they are doing. It is hard to capture the nature of their service unless one has seen it firsthand. During my visit to Afghanistan, I was so impressed by the service and professionalism of our troops serving there. They were remarkable. One brief story from a guardsman serving in Iraq in 2011 captures the spirit of who those men and women are. Montana Specialist Chvilicek was serving as a medic in a convoy near Balad. His convoy hit an IED which cut Specialist Chvilicek's arm and ear with shrapnel. Instead of attending to his own wounds, Specialist Chvilicek immediately sprang into action, providing medical care to his fellow soldiers. That is remarkable, but it is not uncommon. That is exactly the kind of spirit these troops have. Our Nation has been at war now for more than 10 years. These men and women represent the 1 percent of our country serving in the military who are bearing a very heavy load for the rest of us. Montanans do not take these men and women for granted. Friends, families, neighbors and communities show up to wish them well when they deploy and greet them when they return home. They send care packages overseas and fill in as babysitters here at home. They provide hands to hold and ears to listen. To every Montanan serving as part of that support system and to every employer of a national guardsmen: thank you for what you do. Last year I had the honor of attending a deployment ceremony in Helena. A mother told me about what it was like when her husband was deployed. To sum up what she said: It's not easy for these families. For months, there is one fewer helping hand around the house to help out with the carpools, the homework, the leaky faucets, the lawn mowing, and everything else that goes into raising a family day to day. Our military families shoulder a heavy load to support the loved ones who deploy. But you will never hear them complain. They are proud of their service. It is our job to do our part to make sure our troops and our families are taken care of when they come home. A big part of that is making sure they have jobs to come home to. Recent unemployment figures show that 9.1 percent of current or past members of the Reserve or National Guard were unemployed. In Montana that number is as high as 20 percent for our troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to work hard to bring that figure down. I was proud to work on getting a tax credit to help businesses hire our veterans. And this week I am meeting with representatives from the Military Officers Association of America to discuss more ways we can help. One important piece is simply getting the word out. With the help of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, the American Legion, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, we can make sure that both veterans and employers know about it and take full advantage of the credit. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote: ``These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.'' The Montana Guardsmen leaving this month, their families and entire communities, will face a true trial in Afghanistan. We thank them deeply for their service and sacrifice. To every Guardsmen deploying tomorrow: Thank you for your service. And good luck. Please know you are on our minds and in our hearts each and every day. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the revenue title to the highway bill that the Senate passed earlier this month. Gandhi said: ``Truth quenches untruth.'' I rise to quench untruth. I understand some of our colleagues in the House have mischaracterized the Senate's highway bill by saying that it wasn't paid for. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Senate highway bill is fully paid for and supports more than 1.6 million jobs across the country. It will also ensure there is still money in the Highway Trust Fund at the end of the bill's 2-year authorization. I want to explain exactly how we fund this bill so everyone is clear. As chairman of the Committee on Finance, I worked very hard with members of both parties to put together a funding package that would: First, pay for a reauthorization bill through September of 2013; Second, not add a single dime to the deficit or the debt; and, Third, not leave the Highway Trust Fund bankrupt at the end of the proposed reauthorization. According to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Highway Trust Fund needs $5.6 billion to pay for the Senate's proposed reauthorization. In addition, the U.S. Department of Transportation said we need a so- called ``cushion'' of extra money in the Highway Trust Fund at the time of the bill's proposed September 30, 2013 expiration. I am pleased to report that Senate Republicans and Democrats ultimately came together to put $9.2 billion into the Highway Trust Fund within the next two years, paying for the bill and leaving a sizable $3.6 billion cushion at the end of the authorization period. Actually, in total, we put $14 billion into the Highway Trust Fund within the budget window of the next 10 years. Focusing on the nexus to transportation and energy, we were able to transfer an immediate $3 billion surplus in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank trust fund--the so-called ``LUST Fund''--into the Highway Trust Fund. This was an idea offered by a number of Finance Committee Republicans. Like the Highway Trust Fund, the LUST Fund relies on the fuel tax for funding. In addition, Finance Committee Republicans also proposed routing a third of the future fuel tax revenues intended for this storage tank fund into the Highway Trust Fund. This raises nearly another $700 million over 10 years. Next, we transferred into the Highway Trust Fund revenues that the general fund would receive from fees on cars that don't comply with fuel efficiency standards and the tariff on foreign automobile imports. Together, these provisions provide nearly $5 billion for the Highway Trust Fund, with about $1.6 billion coming in the first 2 years. Then, we replenished the general fund for the amounts we moved into the Highway Trust Fund. We did this by clamping down on tax cheats and unscrupulous Medicare providers, as examples. Finally, after accommodating Republican Senators' concerns at markup to rework some elements of our proposal, we accepted a widely supported idea to stabilize required contributions into pension plans. The pension plan beneficiaries will still be able to rely on the plans getting funded, but employers will have a more predictable and realistic schedule for how much to contribute. This provision raised sufficient revenue to enable us to then transfer another $4.5 billion into the Highway Trust Fund in the first 2 years, bringing the 2-year total to about $9.2 billion, well more than the $5.6 billion needed to just pay for the bill. This pension stabilization provision raised more than $9 billion in total, which also enabled us to accept a Republican amendment to put additional money into the Highway Trust Fund in future years. This brought the 10-year total to approximately $14 billion, as I stated earlier. My understanding is that this increase in general fund revenue to plus up the Highway Trust Fund would be considered acceptable under the House Republicans' proposed budget with its ``Reserve Fund.'' It is also my understanding that the House's proposed 5-year bill will leave the Highway Trust Fund at the brink of insolvency by the bill's proposed conclusion, unlike the Senate's carefully crafted compromise that I have just described. The House leadership should not make inaccurate claims about the Senate's bill to camouflage their own inability to pass a long-term bill and unwillingness to work out compromises. We just passed yet another short-term extension to provide funding for only 90 days. We can't keep kicking the can down the road. Pretty soon there will be no road left to kick the can down. The easiest way to work together and forge a solution to create jobs and fund our Nation's highway system is for the House to take up the Senate's bill. It's a good bill. It provides certainty so businesses and communities can plan construction projects and create jobs. It is fully paid for. In fact, it ensures the Highway Trust Fund will remain solvent even after the end of the bill. It gives us time to address the longer-term needs of our national program, and how we are going to pay for it. The House Republican leadership should set partisanship aside. They should realize there are no Republican or Democratic roads or bridges. There are only American ones. It is time to work together and not leave the Highway Trust Fund insolvent. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. President Kennedy said that ``to govern is to choose.'' When you put away the charts and graphs, budgets are about choices. These choices impact our children's schools, business owners' bottom lines, and families' paychecks. And they affect how we care for our wounded veterans when they return home from fighting for us. The House has chosen to pass the House Budget Committee chairman's budget. Just as it did last year, this budget makes a stark choice. It shows where the House's priorities are. Under the House plan, millionaires would receive an average tax cut of at least $150,000. Meanwhile, seniors would eventually have to pay nearly $6,000 more for their health care. That is a big increase when the average senior has a fixed income of only $25,000 a year. Most Americans would agree that this doesn't pass the smell test. We know we need to reduce our deficit. But asking seniors to pay an additional quarter of their income for their health care while giving millionaires a six-figure tax break just isn't fair. It is certainly not balanced. And it is the wrong choice. The House plan would also end the Medicare Program seniors know today. It would eliminate guaranteed benefits. It would charge seniors more for their prescriptions. It would make them pay for the screenings and doctor visits they get free now. The millions hurt by this plan include former members of our Armed Forces who served for more than 20 years or were injured while on duty. This budget leaves these military retirees-- and other seniors--high and dry. It takes a lot of courage to serve a full career in the military. But there is nothing courageous about cutting care for our military retirees. I will stand up for our military and our seniors and make sure they have the health care they need. The House budget also increases the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67 years old. That means seniors would be forced to work later in life, just to keep their health care. And the House budget replaces Medicare with a voucher program. Seniors would have to use these fixed-price vouchers to purchase private insurance or Medicare. But this voucher wouldn't cover seniors' health care needs. Seniors would be forced to make up the difference by spending thousands of dollars out of their own pockets. To make matters worse, under the House plan, seniors would be paying more and getting less. Private insurance companies would get to dictate what care seniors can get--and what they can't. Private companies could say a senior can't have hospice or nursing home care or they could limit hospital stays or prescription drug coverage. The House plan would end the guaranteed benefits that Medicare protects today. I won't let this happen. I won't let others break our promise to America's seniors. I won't let anyone dismantle Medicare. Besides ending the Medicare seniors rely on today, the House budget does not solve our country's deficit problem. It just makes seniors and middle-class families pay more than their fair share. Fortunately, this is not the only option we have to reduce our country's debt. We have another choice--the path we took with health reform. We know our long-term deficits are in part due to health care costs. For the past several decades, these costs have been growing faster than inflation. This makes Medicare more expensive for the government. That is why health reform focused on lowering overall health care costs. This lowers premiums for seniors enrolled in Medicare today. And it helps keep the program strong for generations to come. If we hadn't passed health reform, the deficit would be more than $1 trillion higher over the next two decades. If we hadn't passed the affordable care act, health care spending would have doubled. We passed health reform to bend the cost curve and slow this cost growth. Last week marked the second anniversary of the health care reform law. We are already seeing results. According to CBO, over the next 10 years, per-person Medicare costs will decrease by four percentage points compared to the past thirty years. How did we make this progress? We know that when doctors and hospitals don't talk to each other, patients receive the same tests twice and other duplicative services. Health reform improves coordination by giving providers incentives to work together. We know that expensive diseases can be better managed if they are caught early. Health reform provides free preventive care to catch and treat costly chronic conditions. We know criminals try to rip off taxpayers. Health reform provides law enforcement new tools to protect Medicare and Medicaid from fraud and recoup taxpayer dollars. We know that some of the best ideas to lower costs don't come out of Washington. They come from our communities. Health reform leverages these good ideas by partnering with the private sector. This is the path we need to continue down. We need to ensure these tools are successful and work to improve them. We need to build on these reforms to keep saving consumers' and taxpayers' money. As we look to solving our country's largest problems, we need to remember our priorities. We need to focus on fairness. We need to remember that the choices we make matter. The choices we made in the affordable care act are making our health care system more efficient. These choices are lowering costs for everyone. The House plan chooses to ignore rising health care costs. It simply shifts risks and costs onto the backs of America's seniors. That is a plan that is not right for seniors. It is not right for our health care system. And it is not right for our future. The American people know which choice we should make.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the British statesman Edmund Burke said: All government--indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act--is founded on compromise and barter. Compromise and barter. That means give-and-take in order to work things out. I want to apply Burke's famous aphorism to the two leaders of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the chairman, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, and the ranking member, Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma--one of the Senate's leading liberals and one of the Senate's most dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. While Senators Boxer and Inhofe openly acknowledge there is much they do not agree on, they both agree transportation infrastructure is a smart investment in America's road safety and jobs. So they worked hard to craft a consensus highway bill that three-quarters of the Senate could agree to support. I have always believed this kind of cooperation is the key to success. We can do great things for this country when we work together. When I had the honor of leading the Environment and Public Works Committee, I also had the truly distinct pleasure of working with Senators from both parties who understood Burke's principle of barter and compromise, such as John Warner of Virginia and John Chafee of Rhode Island. So it is very gratifying to know that tradition on the Environment and Public Works Committee continues to be strongly upheld by the chairman and the ranking member today. In working to craft the highway bill, both of these leaders faced pressures not to compromise. Each had ample opportunity to give into those pressures and give up on the bill. But instead of drawing lines in the sand and pointing fingers, they chose to reach out their hands and meet in the middle. They talked to each other and, more importantly, they listened. They opted for pragmatism over ideology. They disagreed without being disagreeable. They worked closely with Senator Vitter and myself to incorporate the best ideas from all sides. Ultimately, those good-faith efforts prevailed when the committee reported our highway bill title with unanimous support. We continued working together to meld that product with contributions from the Banking Committee and the Commerce Committee, along with a fiscally responsible plan to pay for this investment from the Finance Committee. Earlier this month, 75 percent of the Senate came together to pass a highway bill that will create or sustain approximately 1.8 million American jobs each year. That is according to the Department of Transportation. What a tremendous achievement reached by working together--creating or sustaining 1.8 million jobs a year. For my State of Montana, this bill will create or sustain 14,000 jobs each year, and it cuts through redtape to put people to work on those jobs even faster. It gives the State of Montana and our local communities the flexibility they need to fund the alternative transportation projects that work best for them. It invests in the Land and Water Conservation Fund and continues a vital program to support our timber communities. It does it all without adding one single dime to the Federal deficit. Simply put, this bill is an investment in jobs we can't afford to pass up. That is why this weekend Montana's largest newspaper, the Billings Gazette, called on the House to pass the Senate bill, and I join that call today. The current highway bill expires at the end of this month, and the construction season is starting soon. As the Gazette notes, a short- term extension doesn't provide the certainty we need to get highway projects off the ground and workers on the job. We cannot afford to put these jobs on hold by kicking the can down the road--especially when we don't have to, and, also, especially when we don't have much more road to kick the can. The Senate bill is the product of months of debate and cooperation, of give-and-take from all sides, carefully crafted into a bipartisan investment we can all be proud to support. It has already passed the test of overwhelmingly bipartisan support in the Senate, and there is no reason the House should not take up this bill and pass it right away. The House should understand that we need to work together to achieve solutions upon which the American people can rely. Edmund Burke understood that. Thankfully, Senators Boxer and Inhofe clearly understand it too. I thank them for that.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, President Truman once said, ``Healthy citizens constitute our greatest national resource.'' Two years ago last week we passed the affordable care act. We passed it to help give every American access to quality affordable health care. People such as Cece Whitney from Helena, MO, know exactly how much help this law provides. Doctors diagnosed Cece with cystic fibrosis by age 7. By high school she carried an oxygen tank. By the end of college she received a double lung transplant. Even with insurance coverage Cece and her family paid tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket. But things looked even worse when she hit an arbitrary coverage limit, and if she had lost her insurance before health reform she might not have been able to find any insurance coverage at all. Insurance companies could have turned her away simply because she was born with cystic fibrosis. But now, thanks to the affordable care act, Cece will always be covered. She will always have access to the care she needs. A year ago, on the affordable care act's first anniversary, Cece shared her story about seeing health reform signed into law with her local newspaper. She said she cried tears--tears of extreme joy. She wrote: I knew that I no longer had to worry about losing or being denied coverage because of my `preexisting condition.' And I no longer was going to be denied coverage for exceeding arbitrary caps set by insurance companies. Cece's story is not unique. Health reform is working for people in Montana and across the country, and it is saving them money. The law improved our health care system and enabled it to focus on prevention and keeping Americans healthy. We have reforms to pay for quality of care rather than quantity of services. In just 2 years, health reform has lowered costs for millions of Americans. Parents can now afford to cover their entire family, including children up to the age of 26. More than 2.5 million young adults have been able to stay on their parents' plan thanks to health reform. Prescription drugs are now cheaper for seniors because of the act. Already more than 5 million Medicare beneficiaries have saved more than $3 billion on drugs. Again, that is $3 billion saved by seniors on drugs, and health reform eliminates the so-called Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole. This puts dollars back in seniors' pockets--dollars they can use for groceries or electricity bills. Seniors now receive free annual wellness visits and free screenings. This focus on prevention leads to better health outcomes, and it keeps them healthier. It saves money by allowing seniors and their doctors to catch conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes before they become serious and costly. Health reform also helps those who wish to retire early to afford insurance until they qualify for Medicare. The law has provided almost $4.5 billion in aid to businesses to give early-retiree coverage to these employees. Let me repeat that. The law has provided almost $4.5 billion in aid to businesses to enable them to give early-retiree coverage for their employees. Health reform is also saving Americans money through new consumer protections. It is ending insurance company abuses. Medical loss ratios is one that comes to my mind. Because of health reform, parents can now keep their kids who have preexisting conditions on their plan, and insurance companies can no longer exclude these children. Insurance companies can no longer place lifetime and restrictive yearly limits on their health coverage that can cost Americans such as Cece Whitney tens of thousands of dollars, and insurance companies can no longer go back and scrutinize applications for tiny errors as a way to deny payments after a customer gets sick. Health reform has also created the Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Center to put good ideas from the private sector into action. The center is already working with more than 7,100 organizations-- hospitals, physicians, consumer groups, and employers included--to reduce costly hospital readmissions. Health reform provides law enforcement with new tools and resources to protect Medicare and Medicaid from fraud and abuse. These efforts recovered more than $4 billion last year. New antifraud provisions in the act, in the health care bill, helped recover more than $4 billion in fraud last year. Just a few weeks ago, Federal agents made the largest Medicare fraud bust in U.S. history. Ninety-one people were charged with defrauding taxpayers for nearly $300 million. More parts of the affordable care act that will help consumers will start in the year 2014, including the State-based affordable insurance exchanges. On these exchanges people will be able to save money. How? By shopping for an insurance plan that is right for them. It is like getting on Expedia or Orbitz: you just get on and shop around and find the one that is best for you. For too long, individuals and small businesses shopping for insurance on their own have had very limited options. The plans that were available were often too expensive. Now, for the first time, insurance companies will have to compete against each other for business on a level playing field. That will mean lower premiums, better coverage, and more choices. Health reform has also reduced government costs by dramatically slowing the growth in spending. According to our nonpartisan scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office, health reform slowed the growth in health spending by 4 percent. That will save taxpayer dollars and help get our deficit problem under control. We need to let the law keep working to save families and taxpayers more money. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that repealing the affordable care act--repealing it now--would increase the Federal deficit by nearly $143 billion over the next decade. Repeal would cost the Federal deficit $143 billion over the next decade according to the Congressional Budget Office, and it would increase the deficit by more than $1 trillion in the decade after that. Repealing health reform would also leave tens of millions of Americans without insurance. Studies have shown this would cost every American family an extra $1,000 a year. That is something we cannot afford. The affordable care act has already saved millions of Americans money and helped them get affordable health care, and millions more will gain access in the coming years. Healthy citizens are, indeed, the greatest asset our country has. We need to let health reform keep working for all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of today's session and the debate on S. 2204: Juan Machado, David Sklar, Harun Dogo, and Avital Barnea.