Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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. 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.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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. 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. 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.

Madam President, in Taming of the Shrew, William Shakespeare wrote:

There is small choice in rotten apples.

I am here to talk about the choice we have this afternoon, on voting for final passage of H.R. 3606.

Over the past week, the Senate has been debating a bill the House has called the JOBS Act. But as former Securities and Exchange Commission chief accountant Lynn E. Turner said recently:

It won't create jobs, but it will simplify fraud.

I fully support finding ways to help the private sector create good- paying jobs.

Last year, I worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass the Vets Jobs bill, cutting taxes for small businesses while helping veterans get back to work. This Chamber also passed three free trade agreements, setting the stage to increase American exports to Korea, Colombia, and Panama by an estimated $13 billion a year, resulting in tens of thousands of new jobs. And just last week, the Senate passed overwhelmingly the highway bill, which will create and sustain more than 14,000 American jobs per year.

But our choice today leaves much to be desired. While this bill includes some very positive changes to enhance and encourage small business investment, it includes several rotten apples that roll back important investor protections and put the integrity of our markets into question.

So quickly we forget the past. Just over a decade ago, a company called Enron revealed one of the largest corporate and accounting scandals of our time. We all remember the stories of documents shredded, shell companies, exaggerated profits, and lax accounting rules.

Within 1 month, shareholders lost nearly $11 billion as Enron stock plummeted. Families and employees lost their entire savings in a matter of days. Investor confidence in the entire system evaporated.

Just a few years earlier, the dot-com boom hit a fever pitch. Wall Street firms worked frantically to put together initial public offerings for fledgling Internet companies. At the same time, these firms would agree to release upbeat research reports supporting the upcoming IPO in exchange for the company's underwriting business. Unassuming investors relied on this public research touting the IPOs, while firms failed to fully disclose the inherent conflicts of interest.

Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission responded to these scandals by putting investor protections in place to restore confidence in the markets and ensure companies provide comprehensive and honest information to the public. Thanks to these protections, investors no longer have to wonder whether the accounting and auditing disclosures are, in fact, independent and accurate. We can't afford to go backward.

Still, these rules are not perfect. Congress should be looking at ways to

ensure small businesses are given a level playing field.

I hear from Montana small businesses that rules under the Sarbanes- Oxley Act can be costly and time-consuming for small companies which simply lack capacity to handle the extra regulation. I agree we must also look at what these rules may be doing to hamper growth of U.S. small businesses. But we should not forget the past. We should not exempt big business carte blanche without fully discerning the implications.

There are several pieces of this legislation with which I agree. I commend my colleague and friend from the State of Montana, Senator Tester, for his tireless effort to address legitimate concerns with the current cap on small business public offerings.

Senator Tester introduced his bipartisan measure after meeting and talking to growing companies in Montana and elsewhere that could benefit greatly from raising the cap on regulation A small public offerings. Rob Bargatze, founder and CEO of Ligocyte, in Bozeman, MT, and chairman of the Montana Bioscience Alliance, testified in the Banking Committee last year on ideas to improve access to capital for the emerging bio industry.

Rob rightly points out that the current $5 million cap ``does not allow for a large enough capital influx for companies to justify the time and expense necessary to satisfy even the relaxed offering and disclosure requirements.'' Senator Tester has done extraordinary work to shepherd this bill forward. It received considerable support in the House, and was included in the Senate substitute amendment that I supported on Tuesday.

However, this straightforward update to regulation A has been folded into a broader House package. This package includes enough rotten apples to spoil the whole bunch. The House fails to take heed of past history. This bill goes too far in relaxing investor protections critical to preserving the integrity and transparency our markets depend on to function.

For example, this bill includes a new IPO process to exempt companies from many SEC rules for a period of 5 years. The idea is to give small emerging companies time to comply with new auditing and reporting requirements. However, the House bill applies to all offerings by companies with sales less than $1 billion. At this level, even the very large, well-established companies will have a free pass for 5 years before complying with the very rules put in place to protect investors and the markets from another Enron-type scandal.

Furthermore, the House creates a gaping hole in the rules set up after the dot-com bubble to prevent an underwriting bank from publishing research reports in support of the upcoming IPO. The House bill would now allow underwriting banks to issue such research to unsuspecting investors. And it limits the company's responsibility to make sure such research is accurate and comprehensive.

We have seen too many examples lately of what can happen when we don't protect the little guys from Wall Street greed--just look at how MF Global took advantage of Montana ranchers, and that is when there were rules in place. We can't afford to go back to the days when Enron was able to swindle thousands of Americans out of their life savings.

I appreciate the work of my colleagues on this matter, but we owe it to American workers and families to see to it that this bill preserves investor confidence and integrity in our markets.

I simply cannot support the House package containing so many bad apples.

Mr. President, we mark March as Women's History Month, as a time of year for us to remember the valiant female leaders of our great Nation. One of them is very special to Montana. In 1916 Jeannette Rankin was the first woman elected to the United States Congress, 4 years before women were granted the right to vote.

As a member of the House of Representatives, her daring and vocal stance on controversial issues such as war and peace brought critical recognition from the press. In every situation, the strength of her values persisted, even under the pressures of unanimous opposition to a war with Germany. Jeannette Rankin said, ``I may be the first woman Member of Congress, but I won't be the last,'' and helped to pave the way for future generations of women leaders.

This past Saturday, March 17, 2012, marked a monumental day in American history. The Senator from Maryland, Ms. Barbara Mikulski, celebrated her 35 year in the United States Congress.

That important accomplishment is a milestone for American culture and female leaders in Congress. Senator Mikulski is now the longest serving female in the Senate and in the history of the U.S. Congress. She spent her first 10 years in the House of Representatives, followed by the next 25 years here in the Senate. She has worked every day to make America a better place for the next generation.

When Senator Mikulski began her work in the House of Representatives, there were 18 female Members of the House and three female Members of the Senate. When she began her first term in the Senate, there were 23 female Members of the House and only one other female Member of the Senate. Now, she is a leader among our 17 female Senators and 76 female Members of the House of Representatives.

Her strong sense of community and instinctive nature pertaining to the needs of Americans is exemplified by her action-oriented attitude. Even before her tenure in Congress, as a social worker for the people of Maryland, Ms. Mikulski was active in local issues in and around the Baltimore area and worked to help at-risk children and seniors. She continues working passionately to address those issues throughout her tenure in Congress.

Her advocacy for justice and contributions to social issues are evident with her work to fight for women's rights and improved access to health care, to better education, and to volunteering and national service opportunities. She offers tremendous leadership for the Senate both as the chairwoman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, and as the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies.

Like Jeannette Rankin, Senator Mikulski has been a leader and an exemplar for strong and courageous women leaders in America.

Senator Mikulski gets things done, and I have enjoyed our friendship during our work together in the Senate. Her brave spirit is one that sets the bar for new and incoming Senators, both male and female. I congratulate Senator Mikulski on her special day and I look forward to continuing our work in the Senate together.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to support our contract with rural America for decent roads and explain an amendment the Senate adopted last Thursday.

Counties lose local tax revenue due to large Federal landholding. So, for over a century, Congress has supported payments to counties to make up the difference. Secure Rural Schools and Payments in Lieu of Taxes-- known as PILT--continue that important commitment to these communities.

Rural counties that are home to large swaths of Federal lands rely on these funds to keep schools warm and keep the lights on at the county road department. These investments are rightfully due to rural counties as part of their compact with the Federal Government. These funds support jobs in Montana, education, and important county road projects. For counties such as Lincoln, Beaverhead, and Ravalli in Montana, these payments are a lifeline. My amendment keeps that lifeline intact, and it does so without adding a dime to the debt.

We are considering a 2-year surface transportation bill in the Senate. And let me make clear: county payments are about roads.

Secure Rural Schools requires payments to be spent either on roads or on schools. Over the last decade, over 50 percent of payments went to roads. In States like Idaho and Oregon, this makes up 20 percent of all highway spending in those States.

U.S. Census survey data suggests that much of PILT is spent on highways too. For example, in Nevada and Iowa, counties spend one in six dollars on highways. In Alabama, Arkansas, and Missouri that figure is one in five, and in the Dakotas and Oklahoma, it is nearly one in three.

Each of my colleagues has a list of the payments that went to their counties this year.

Last Thursday, I and Senators Murkowski, Bingaman, Crapo, Wyden, Risch, Merkley, Tester, and Bennet offered an amendment to extend Secure Rural Schools and PILT payments for 1 additional year. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 82 to 16.

This amendment was paid for with commonsense offsets. One of the provisions I wanted to highlight is the offset that establishes reporting requirements for the sale of a life insurance contract. Even though we know it needs a little fine tuning, it is a tax gap provision that has the support of all the industries affected, and we look

forward to working with them to improve it.

A second offset provides a new tool for Federal agencies to manage their workforce as well as for employees to manage their careers. Currently, Federal employees who are eligible for retirement cannot collect their retirement without quitting Federal service. This results in a drain on experienced Federal workers. It also encourages employees to leave government, even though they may want to stay.

This proposal will allow Federal employees to phase into retirement by reducing their workload and receive a portion of their retirement benefit. It allows Federal agencies to save money because they don't have to hire new employees and it allows the Federal retirement trust fund to save money by paying only a portion of retirement benefits. And it is totally optional to the employee, so it is a win for the employee and a win for American taxpayers.

Another offset in this proposal partially closes a loophole regarding roll-your-own tobacco. Congress raised taxes on tobacco to pay for the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program in 2009. Tax rates on pipe tobacco were not increased as much as on roll-your-own tobacco; therefore, tobacco companies are selling bags of roll-your-own tobacco and labeling them as pipe tobacco. In other words, the pipe tobacco is masquerading as tobacco to be rolled into cigarettes to avoid the additional tax.

That isn't right. We should close this loophole. The abuse is so prevalent that gas station owners now have cigarette rolling machines to facilitate the loophole. A customer purchases a bag of pipe tobacco and then uses the machine to roll cigarettes. This provision helps close this loophole by treating establishments with cigarette rolling machines as manufacturers and therefore subject to the Federal excise taxes on tobacco manufacturers. This would raise $99 million.

This highway bill was the right place to extend Secure Rural Schools and PILT for rural Americans who deserve decent roads.

I thank my colleagues for supporting my amendment. We have done great work for rural America.

Mr. President, I am delighted that the surface transportation bill that we just passed includes a very important provision that will help to stabilize the level of contributions that employers will have to make to their defined benefit pension plans.

When I talk with employers in Montana and throughout the country, one of the biggest drawbacks they cite for sponsoring a pension plan for their employers and the biggest reason most employers decide not to sponsor a plan is the inability to predict how much it is going to cost. Employers have to make a guess as to how much their benefits will be in future years, discount that value to the present, and make a contribution today that will meet that obligation. This is all in addition to guessing other variables, such as how long their employees will work for them and how long they will live after retirement.

We all worked hard in 2005 and 2006 to develop pension funding rules that work, so that assets will be in the plan to meet the employer's promise to its employees. However, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 did not, and could not, account for the unforeseeable slide in asset values in 2008 and now the historically low interest rates that employers have to use in valuing their obligations.

As a result of the artificially low interest rates today, employers will have to put about twice as much into their plans this year as they did last year, according to the Society of Actuaries, and that steep increase in required contributions will continue until 2016. There is nothing that will discourage an employer from keeping its plan or creating a new one than this kind of steep and unexpected increase in required contributions.

The bill we passed today provides significant stabilization in the interest rates that employers have to use in determining their contributions, and employers will be able to use the rules immediately.

I am pleased that we were able to do this for employers. More important, the provision is good for employees because it helps to keep pension plans viable. I remain open to other proposals that will help employers to continue to provide a secure retirement for employees and their families.

Mr. President, I would like to thank leaders Reid and McConnell for emphasizing the importance of getting extenders done. As we prepare for tax reform, it will be important for us to examine these provisions to determine whether we are getting the most bang for our buck. Tax reform, however, will take some time and these provisions have already expired. We should provide certainty to taxpayers by extending them through this year as soon as possible.

These provisions are important to American families and businesses. These provisions include college tuition relief for working families. These are tax provisions that help create jobs, support research and development, and bolster growth of American businesses across the globe. It is also critical for our energy sector. A dozen energy tax incentives expired at the end of last year and several more expire this year. Each day we fail to extend these incentives means jobs for our economy. I am glad we are working on a bipartisan basis to extend these provisions and I hope we can do so as soon as possible. We need to make sure that taxpayers don't see tax increases because Congress failed to do its duty.