Floor Statements

Mr. President, the textbook definition of ``economics'' is about scarcity. For example, in his textbook ``Principles of Economics,'' President Bush's chief economic adviser, Gregory Mankiw, wrote this:

Economics is the study of how society manages its scarce

resources.

We could say the same thing about fiscal policy. Fiscal policy is about how society, acting through its government, chooses to allocate scarce resources. There is not an endless supply of money. We have to make choices. Every time we put together a budget, we have to make choices. Every time we formulate the Nation's tax policy, we have to make choices.

So when it comes to whether to extend the 2001 tax cuts, once again, we have to make choices. It is a question of priorities. The debate over what to do about the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for those with the highest incomes is a debate about priorities.

Are we better off devoting scarce resources to a larger tax cut for those at the very top or are we better off devoting those scarce resources to new tax incentives to promote investment and create new jobs or are we better off devoting those scarce resources to reducing the Federal budget deficit and debt? Those are the choices we need to make.

Today, the Senate is considering how we should make those choices. The amendment we have offered says basically: Let's make the middle- class tax cuts permanent. That is something on which pretty much everyone in this Chamber should agree. After we have cut taxes for middle-class Americans, then let's have an honest debate. Let's debate whether extending tax cuts for the very top incomes is the right priority.

But, in any case, making middle-class tax cuts permanent is the right thing to do. Let's not allow tax cuts for middle-class Americans to be held hostage to partisan wrangling about tax cuts for those who make the very most.

So how did we come to this choice? Let me take a few moments to review how we got here.

In 2001, Congress enacted legislation to let American families keep more of their money. Many of these tax incentives were phased in over several years. In 2003, Congress enacted legislation adding new tax incentives and speeding up implementation of the 2001 law.

The 2001 and 2003 tax laws lowered tax rates for all taxpayers, and those laws provided much needed tax relief for families, education, and small business. Many of these tax provisions have broad support across the political spectrum. But these tax benefits are not permanent. Beginning on January 1, all these 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, even those for Americans who need them the most.

At the same time, the Federal debt is at its highest level since shortly after World War II, and our fiscal challenges are growing with the retirement of the baby boom generation. The amendment we consider today responds to both these challenges.

So what would our amendment do? First, our amendment would extend tax cuts for middle-class American families. Our amendment would permanently extend the lower tax rates for income up to $250,000 for married couples and $200,000 for individuals.

Extending these lower tax rates would benefit all taxpayers--all taxpayers--including higher income taxpayers. In fact, higher income taxpayers would receive the largest tax benefits in terms of dollars per taxpayer. That is, of course, because we have our marginal tax rate system in America. So making the tax cut permanent for all taxes of Americans below $250,000 will benefit all Americans--not only those below $250,000, but those above $250,000, will, under this amendment, get a benefit. As I said, in fact, higher income taxpayers receive the largest tax benefits in terms of dollars per taxpayer, even under the $250,000 amendment.

Our amendment would make permanent the provisions that help working families with children. The number of people living in poverty is at a 15-year high. One out of every five American children lives in poverty. Many of these provisions in our amendment would help keep children and their families out of poverty.

The amendment would make permanent the expanded earned-income tax credit for families with three or more children. The increased tax credit provides more help to families with children. The partially refundable portion of the credit allows families to receive a benefit even when their tax liability is low, as long as the family has earned income of more than $3,000.

This credit helps to support 13 million children in low-income working

families every year. These families are likely to spend every dollar they receive right away. That means this provision would also help the economy.

The increased dependent care credit recognizes the increased cost of childcare for working families. People should be able to go to work and have the quality care they need for their children. In 2008, the dependent care credit helped more than 6.5 million working families to make ends meet.

Our amendment would make permanent a tax benefit for employers who construct, build or expand property used as a childcare facility. This benefit recognizes the contribution that some employers make to help their employees balance child-raising and a career.

The amendment would provide permanent marriage penalty relief. That way, married couples would not get higher taxes as an added wedding present.

The amendment would direct that certain government programs disregard refundable tax credits when determining eligibility for the programs. This would ensure that America's most in need would not be worse off because of tax incentives. We don't want to give with one hand and take away with the other.

Our amendment also addresses the importance of getting a quality education and the increased cost of getting an education. Our amendment would make it easier to deduct student loan interest, to eliminate the restriction on the number of months eligible for the deduction, and it would expand the eligibility to more postgraduates. Our amendment would make permanent the American opportunity tax credit. This would help students to afford a higher education. This provision is a partially refundable tax credit up to $2,500 of the cost of tuition and fees, including books. The amendment includes an income exclusion for loan repayment for programs where a postgraduate becomes a health professional in an underserved area. The amendment would include continuing education for workers by allowing an exclusion from income for employer-provided educational assistance programs.

What do we do about capital gains and dividends? Right now, capital gains are currently taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent and dividends are treated as capital gains. This treatment expires at the end of this year. Starting January 1, unless we act, capital gains will be taxed at 20 percent and dividends will be treated as ordinary income.

Our amendment would make permanent the current capital gains rate for taxpayers with incomes up to $250,000 for married couples and up to $200,000 for individuals. The amendment continues to treat dividends as capital gains for all taxpayers, so dividends would not be treated as ordinary income for any taxpayer. This would level the playing field. This would ensure that the Tax Code will not favor one type of investment over the other.

What do we do about the alternative minimum tax? Our amendment would provide 2 years of relief from the AMT. Every year, we talk about the AMT and how it ensnares hard-working Americans. Originally, Congress created the AMT to stop--get this--just 155 millionaires from completely avoiding income taxes. That was the point of the AMT. It was an attempt to make sure all taxpayers paid their fair share. What about today? Now, millions of hard-working families are subject to this dreadful tax--not 155 millionaires but millions of people--families who are working hard, raising children, and find themselves hit with increased taxes. We are not talking about millionaires; we are talking about a larger group of Americans. AMT has this effect because it was not indexed.

To keep the number of taxpayers subject to this tax from growing, Congress has to pass an AMT patch every year. Without an AMT fix, the number of taxpayers subject to the tax would explode. In Montana, Congress's failure to enact a patch would mean that more than six times as many taxpayers would have that burden.

Our amendment would take care of the AMT for 2010 and 2011. During that time, Congress can deal with this stealth tax once and for all as part of tax reform.

What about small business? Our amendment would benefit small business owners by making permanent the 2007 expansion of section 179 expensing.

What about the estate tax? Our amendment would provide permanent estate tax relief for family-owned businesses. In 2001, Congress voted to provide estate tax relief to American families. We decreased the rate and increased the exemption over time, until we had complete repeal for 2010 only. That is what we have today, in 2010. Next year, if we don't act, the law will snap back up to the old 2001 rate. This has resulted in uncertainty and a planning nightmare for families. Our amendment would eliminate that uncertainty. The amendment would make permanent 2009 estate tax law going forward. It would set the top tax rate at 45 percent and the exemption at $3.5 million per person, which obviously amounts to $7 million per couple.

The amendment includes an election for estates that arose between January 1 and the law's enactment. The heirs would be able to choose either current law or the new permanent tax rate and exemption.

Our amendment would provide an exemption for family ranches and farms. This provision would ensure that no family farm or ranch ever has to be sold to pay estate taxes.

Our amendment would simplify planning for spouses. Most people believe that a couple automatically receives double the exemption amount. So if an exemption is $3.5 million, most folks assume that a couple gets $7 million. But what many people don't know is that to get the full $7 million exemption, couples have to plan. Our amendment would simplify planning for spouses by allowing the transfer of any unused exemption between spouses. This would make the law work the way most people think it works already. The resulting estate tax law would provide certainty to taxpayers, and the remaining estate tax would affect only the heirs of the very largest estates. It would ensure that the small number of people who inherit so much money that they never have to work during their life would contribute their fair share.

What about the provision that folks call tax extenders? Our amendment would extend a number of other tax provisions important to individuals, businesses, and State and local governments. These provisions will continue to help create jobs and pay taxes. Our amendment would create jobs by improving our Nation's infrastructure. It would reduce the cost to local governments to build roads, bridges, and water treatment facilities. The amendment would extend multiple incentives that promote energy sustainability and efficiency. The amendment would extend the dollar-per-gallon credit for biodiesel and renewable diesel, and the amendment would extend the manufacturer's credit for the construction of new energy-efficient homes.

The amendment includes a credit for energy-efficient appliances and a credit for alternative-fuel motor vehicles. The amendment includes an extension of the advanced energy investment credit for businesses engaged in the manufacturing of technologies for the production of renewable energy and energy storage, and the amendment provides parity for transit benefits so that employers can provide tax-free benefits to their employees for both transit and parking.

Our amendment would extend a number of tax cuts for individuals, including an extension of the making work pay credit--very stimulative. It helps the economy dramatically, and if it is not in here, it will be destimulative and hurt the economy.

Our amendment would help teachers by extending the expense deduction for teachers who buy school supplies for their classrooms. The amendment would extend the additional standard deduction for State and local real estate taxes as well as the ability of itemizers to deduct sales taxes in lieu of State and local income taxes. Our amendment would extend the qualified tuition deduction to help with college costs.

This amendment would extend much needed relief for communities that have suffered from natural disasters.

Our amendment would extend important business tax provisions to help create jobs and make our companies competitive in a global economy. The amendment would extend the research and development credit to help American businesses keep on the cutting edge.

Our amendment also includes a provision that will help small businesses across our country. The provision would repeal an expansion of information reporting rules that was enacted this past year, otherwise known as 1099. Those rules expanded current information reporting requirements to include payments businesses make to corporations and payments for goods and property, not just services. This provision, known as the 1099 provision, imposes a record-keeping burden on small businesses that would take away from the time business owners need to expand their business and create jobs. This information reporting went too far, especially in this difficult economy. It is important that we repeal this expansion of information reporting.

Now, some will say that we should extend tax cuts for everyone, even the very rich. America is working through tough economic times. At the same time, our country has record deficits. Our amendment would balance these two concerns. Our amendment would extend all the tax cuts affecting middle and lower income Americans that Congress enacted in 2001 and in 2003 that sunset this year. Our amendment would also extend several expiring tax cuts benefiting middle and lower income Americans that Congress enacted in 2009. Our amendment would protect Americans who have been struggling to get by.

Our amendment would also benefit taxpayers with higher incomes. The cuts in our amendment apply to all of the income up to $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples even if the taxpayer makes more than that. At the same time, we crafted our amendment with recognition of the mounting deficits our country faces.

Our amendment would not rely on the gimmick of temporarily extending tax cuts in order to mask their size, knowing that future Congresses will be unable to resist the temptation to keep extending these cuts. It is about priorities. Our amendment makes choices.

Our amendment would not make permanent all of the expiring tax cuts that Congress enacted in 2009. It would not make permanent tax cuts that benefit only those Americans who need them the least. Only 3 percent of Americans have incomes greater than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for individuals.

Over the past quarter century, the average after-tax income of the wealthiest 5 percent has grown 150 percent.

At the same time in the past quarter century, the average after-tax income of middle-class Americans has grown by only 28 percent. So 150 percent for the top 5 percent--the wealthiest--and only 28 percent for middle-income Americans. Today, the bottom 80 percent of households receive less than half of all after-tax income. The benefits of recent economic growth have not been widely shared, so the middle class should not be asked to tighten their belts as much as the high-income folks who have benefited the most.

As we come out of the great recession, we need to recognize the growing Federal budget deficit. In 2010, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. That is the second highest level relative to the size of the economy since 1945. This was exceeded only by 2009's $1.4 trillion deficit-- $100 billion more--and the Congressional Budget Office projects that deficits will remain high for the rest of the decade. That means the Federal debt will keep growing.

When we passed the 2001 tax cuts, the Federal Government was running a surplus. When we passed the 2001 tax cuts, economists projected big surpluses as far as the eye could see. Times have changed. We need to consider our current fiscal condition. With 15 million Americans still out of work, it is important that we keep our economy on the path to recovery by extending tax cuts for families who need them the most and who will spend it.

Our amendment strikes the right balance. It is a question of priorities. Our amendment says that we should not devote scarce resources to a larger tax cut for those at the very top. Our amendment says that we would be better off devoting those scarce resources to new tax incentives that promote investment and create new jobs or we would be better off devoting those scarce resources to reducing the Federal budget deficit and debt. Those are the choices we have to make.

Our amendment says: Let's make the middle-class tax cuts permanent. Our amendment says: Let's not allow tax cuts for middle-class Americans to be held hostage for tax cuts for those who make the very most. There is not an endless supply of money. We have to make choices.

I submit that these are the choices we need to make. I encourage my colleagues to support our amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suspend my request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff be allowed floor privileges during the consideration of the tax bill: Mary Baker, Danielle Dellerson, Andrew Fishburn, William Kellogg, Nicole Lemire, Deborah Ma, Nicole Marchman, John Merrick, Kane Ossorio, Manishi Rodrigo, and Greg Sullivan.

Mr. President, today, without congressional action, hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose their unemployment benefits. Earlier this week, along with 19 of my colleagues, I introduced the Unemployment Insurance Stabilization Act of 2010--the USA bill. Our bill would reauthorize the Federal unemployment benefits program.

Unemployment benefits are the only lifeline that many workers in Montana and across the nation have left in this tough economy. These benefits help millions of Americans to put food on the table and roofs over their heads. These benefits pump money into our economy and help to create jobs.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that unemployment benefits have one of the largest effects on economic output and employment per dollar spent of any policy.

This Congress has spent a lot of time reauthorizing unemployment benefits for a few months at a time. This bill would reauthorize the program for a full year.

A longer reauthorization of the unemployment benefits program would provide certainty. It would provide certainty for our economy. And it would provide the certainty that Americans looking for work need.

This bill would fund unemployment insurance for people who have lost their jobs in the latter portion of the recession.

This bill would not provide anyone with more than 99 weeks of benefits. This bill would ensure that out-of-work Americans who lost their jobs recently would get benefits similar to those received by their neighbors who lost their jobs earlier in the recession.

The Department of Labor reports that for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, two dollars are reinvested in the economy.

This bill is crucial to our economy. This bill is about jobs.

This bill is about jobs because unemployment insurance goes to people who will spend it immediately. That increases economic demand. And that helps to support our fragile economic recovery.

CBO says that aid to the unemployed is among the policies best suited to creating jobs per dollar of budgetary cost.

With unemployment at 9.6 percent, now is not the time to stop investing in economic recovery. This bill would keep in place a major source of our recovery. This bill would support Americans who have worked, are looking for work, and will work again.

For millions of people, unemployment insurance is the bridge to the next job. This bill would provide a bridge over troubled waters.

I think of a woman from Helena, MT, who called my office. She told us that unemployment benefits are keeping her family afloat. She was laid off when she was 8 months pregnant. And she wants the Senate to know that she has worked since she was a teenager. She wants to work. And she will work again.

And I think of a Montana father with three small children who was laid off after 18 years of service. The company could no longer pay his wages. He has no income. But he continues to look for work. His home is going into foreclosure. Unemployment insurance has been his only income. It is what puts food on the table for his family.

This is America. When there is an emergency, we don't leave people behind.

We cannot take Federal unemployment insurance benefits away before our economy and out-of-work Americans have found their footing.

Let's not leave the unemployed behind.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today regarding the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. It is a rare day in the Congress that we have an opportunity like this to end, once and for all, decades-old injustices and water related claims against the government so that we can move forward together. I am proud that the House of Representatives passed the Claims Resolution Act, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent on Friday, November 19.

The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 includes the Cobell settlement, which settles claims resulting from mismanagement of trust accounts of close to 300,000 American Indians.

It includes the Pigford settlement, which settles discrimination claims by black farmers against the USDA.

It settles water related claims of tribes in Arizona, New Mexico, and Montana.

The bill is fully offset.

Each settlement in this package has its own history--each compelling in its own regard--that has brought us to this day of resolution. I want to focus in particular on the Cobell settlement and the Crow Water Compact, which are both so important to Montana.

Tribal members comprise over 6 percent of Montana'spopulation. American Indians live in every county in Montana, and our State has several counties where more than half of the population is comprised of tribal members. Nine percent of Montana's land base is located within the boundaries of our State's seven Indian Reservations.

The Cobell settlement resolves the class-action lawsuit brought by Native American representatives and lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe in northwestern Montana, against the U.S. Government. This case dealt with the mismanagement of Indian trust assets by the U.S. Government.

In 1887 the Federal Government allotted tribal lands to individual Indians in parcels between 40 and 160 acres. The Department of Interior was supposed to hold these parcels in trust for a period of 25 years and then turn them over to the individual Indians. The Department of Interior has held these allotments in trust until the present day. During the 123 years since 1887, these lands have become highly fractionated as successive generations of Indian owners bequeathed the land to their children.

Today the Department of the Interior holds about 56 million acres of land in trust for individual Indians. These 56 million acres generate approximately $357 million annually in coal sales, timber sales, oil and gas leases, and grazing leases. This $357 million is supposed to be dispersed to the over 230,000 Indians who have an interest in various parcels.

In the Cobell case, the plaintiffs sought a historical accounting of what individuals were owed and the Department of Interior contended that it could not provide such an accounting.

This case has been going on for 14 years, leaving the plaintiffs without resolution of their claims and diverting attention and resources away from other projects in Indian Country. On December 8, 2009, Secretary Salazar and the plaintiffs agreed to a $3.4 billion settlement. It is a testament to both sides in this litigation that a fair agreement has been reached.

The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 provides the funding needed to implement this settlement. I am proud of the diligence and focus with which Eloise Cobell pursued justice in this case. I am proud that she is a Montanan, proud of the result, and proud of the Congress for doing the right thing.

I am just as proud of the action we took with regard to the Crow Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010. The Crow Tribe has a membership of approximately 12,000 people. About 7,900 reside on the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana. It is the largest of Montana's seven reservations, comprising approximately 2.3 million acres. The current reservation was established by the Treaty of Fort Laramie with the United States dated May 7, 1868. At the time of its establishment, the reservation comprised nearly 5.9 million acres in both Wyoming and Montana. However, over time the reservation was reduced by nearly 3.6 million acres. The last cession of Crow land, in 1904, included what came to be known as the Ceded Strip, 1 million acres on the north side of the reservation.

There are a number of large streams that flow through the Crow Indian Reservation, including the Bighorn River and its tributaries, one of which is the Little Bighorn River. Another significant stream on the western portion of the Crow Indian Reservation is Pryor Creek and its tributaries.

The Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010 ratifies the Crow- Montana Water Rights Compact, which was adopted by the Montana State Legislature in 1999. It establishes tribal water rights and settles claims against the government. The bill provides for funding that will be used to more fully develop tribal water resources. This water compact was endorsed by the administration--one of the first to receive this level of consensus and support.

I commend the tribe and the administration, particularly Chairman Cedric Black Eagle and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Mike Connor, and their respective teams for their hard work on this. I also want to thank the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Barasso, for their work reaching consensus. Finally, I want to thank my colleague from Montana, Senator Jon Tester, who has worked so hard to push this through the Senate.

This was truly a bi-partisan effort with cooperation here in the Senate from Senator Bingaman, Senator Kyl, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Grassley, all of whom worked together and compromised so that we could come together today and do the right thing.

With the House passage of this bill, we are settling decades-old injustices and claims against the government. We are bringing our Nation closer together. I am proud to stand here today, having been a part of making this happen, and I look forward to the day that we see President Obama's signature on this bill.

Mr. President, at 6:30 this evening, the Senate will vote on

the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment to the food safety bill. Under a previous order, once cloture is invoked, there was to be up to 60 minutes of debate on competing motions to suspend rule XXII offered by Senator Johanns and myself. I understand that the two leaders intend to propound an agreement that would provide for the Senate to vote on our two motions immediately after the cloture vote this evening. So Senators should be on notice that there may be three back-to-back votes beginning at 6:30.

The Senator from Nebraska and I share a common goal. We both want to repeal some IRS reporting requirements scheduled to take effect in the year 2012. Each of our two motions would allow consideration of an amendment to prevent the expansion of those IRS reporting rules. Thus, each of our two amendments would help small businesses across America. How? By repealing these burdensome paperwork requirements.

But there are two big differences between our two amendments. First, my alternative is especially friendly to small businesses. It takes extra measures to permit the IRS to waive certain duplicative reporting requirements that small businesses now must experience; that is, the small businesses that use credit cards to pay their bills. My alternative goes further and gives more relief to small businesses. Second, our two versions differ as far as paying for the change. The alternative offered by my colleague from Nebraska would give the unelected Director of OMB unprecedented authority to slash spending all on his own. The Johanns alternative would thus abdicate Congress's responsibility over the budget. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Johanns amendment and support my alternative.

First, let me talk about what we have in common. Each of our two amendments is designed to get rid of a set of rules that requires reporting to the IRS. Many have referred to these rules as the ``1099 provision.'' That is because these new rules would require filing more IRS forms numbered 1099. These rules would impose new paperwork burdens and costs on small businesses, and these burdens would fall on small businesses just as they are struggling to emerge from the great recession. The new rules expand existing information reporting to the IRS to include payments that businesses make to corporations and payments they make for goods and property.

As I travel around my home State of Montana, I listen to small business owners such as Darrell Keck. Darrell owns the Dixie Inn in Shelby, MT. Darrell and his wife Jeanne run a tight ship. They are hard working. They pay their taxes. Darrell told me that he and his wife just do not have the manpower or the software to make the new reporting rules work. And Darrell and his wife Jeanne run just one business of the many mom-and-pop businesses in Montana that have told me this. I daresay most of the Members of this body hear the same things I hear as they travel. I have listened to small businesses. I have heard them. I am responding to small businesses by offering this amendment. My amendment would fully repeal the new reporting requirements--fully.

My amendment also responds to the concerns of owners of rental property. Some of these owners were concerned about their ability to comply with new rental expense information reporting rules included in the small business bill which Congress enacted just this last September. My amendment would scale back those rules. My amendment would apply the same rules to rental expense reporting as would apply to all businesses.

Now let me turn to the differences between my amendment and the Johanns amendment.

First, my amendment includes another feature that would further reduce the paperwork burdens on small businesses. My amendment would grant the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue regulations to avoid duplicative reporting. The Treasury has issued guidance under similar authority to allow small businesses that use credit cards to forgo reporting expenses they pay with their credit cards. Under this new guidance, to the extent small businesses use their credit cards to pay service vendors, they would actually have even less compliance burden than they did under the old law; that is, before the new requirement.

The competing amendment offered by my colleague from Nebraska would repeal the Treasury's authority to make rules to avoid duplicative reporting. It would repeal it. Doing so would thus risk placing undue and unnecessary paperwork burdens on small businesses that use credit cards to pay their bills.

So my alternative is especially friendly to small businesses. It takes extra measures to permit the IRS to waive duplicative reporting, especially those requirements for small businesses that use credit cards.

The second main difference between our two amendments is the offset in the Johanns amendment--and this is a big one. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that the tax law changes in the Johanns amendment would cost about $22 billion.

The Johanns amendment also includes a cut of $39 billion in appropriated funds, to be determined by the Office of Management and Budget. The Johanns amendment cuts about twice what it needs to do to pay for the repeal of the reporting requirements. As a matter of dollars and cents, the Johanns amendment is mostly about cutting appropriated spending. That is what it really is. So it is not about repealing the reporting requirement. To make these spending cuts, the Johanns amendment would give the unelected Director of OMB unprecedented authority to determine the source of this funding, and that would abdicate congressional responsibility over the budget.

The Joint Tax Committee estimates that my amendment would cost about $19 billion. That is a little less than the tax part of the Johanns amendment. But my amendment does not include an offset. These days, finding a $19 billion offset that can get 67 votes is pretty close to impossible. We have spent much of this year haggling over one offset or another. My amendment tries to avoid that.

We are talking about a paperwork requirement that has not yet even taken effect and, in fact, will not take effect, if not repealed, until the year 2012. Let's just repeal this reporting requirement. Let's just get it done. Let's just repeal it lock, stock, and barrel. Let's just get it done and not do all of these extra, other things which really are not good policy.

The IRS has used form 1099 for decades to better track income, but the new reporting rules just went too far. The time that it spends for small businesses to comply with the new rules far exceeds any benefit.

Especially in these tough economic times, now is not the time to put additional stress on small businesses to meet complicated government rules. Rather, now is the time to eliminate this paperwork burden. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. That is especially true in Montana. In Montana, a greater share of workers work in small businesses than in any other State in the country--a greater proportion than in any other State in the country. Business owners need to focus their efforts on growing their businesses and creating jobs, not filling out paperwork.

Small businesses in Montana and across America want to comply with tax laws, but these new rules stretch their ability to do that. It just went too far. I urge my colleagues to support their full repeal. But let's not hand over a blank check to the OMB Director to slash $39 billion wherever he wants. That part of the Johanns amendment also goes too far. So I urge my colleagues to help small businesses. I urge my colleagues to avoid sweeping delegations of power to an unelected OMB Director. Thus, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Johanns amendment and support the Baucus amendment when it comes up for a vote this evening.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request which I understand has been cleared on both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that the agreement with respect to S. 510 be modified as follows:

That after the cloture vote at 6:30 p.m. today, and if cloture is invoked, then all debate time with respect to the Johanns and Baucus motions be considered expired; Senator Johanns be recognized to offer his motion to suspend; that once the motion has been

made, Senator Baucus then be recognized to offer his motion to suspend; that once made, the Senate then proceed to vote with respect to the Johanns amendment to suspend; that upon disposition of that motion, the Senate then proceed to vote with respect to the Baucus motion to suspend; that upon disposition of those two motions, Senator Coburn then be recognized as provided for under the order of November 18 and 19; that all debate time with respect to the Coburn motion be utilized during today's session; that at 9 a.m. Tuesday, November 30, after the prayer and the pledge and any leader time, the Senate then resume consideration of S. 510 with 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled between Senators Coburn and Inouye, prior to the vote in relation to the Coburn motion regarding earmarks, No. 4697; that upon disposition of that motion, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that the Senate then proceed to vote with respect to the Coburn motion regarding the substitute amendment No. 4696; further, that any other provisions of the previous order remain in effect; provided further that prior to passage of the bill, the Budget Committee pay-go statement be read into the record; further, that after the first vote today and tomorrow, the succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes each; and that prior to the succeeding votes tonight, there be 2 minutes equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, may I further amend that request to provide that after the swearing in of Senator-elect Kirk, the time be equally divided until 6:30 p.m. this evening, and that the Senator from Oklahoma be recognized to speak for 15 minutes, and the time to be divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Before.

Madam President, pursuant to the previous order, I move to suspend the rules for the consideration of my amendment, which is at the desk, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I understand, under the order, each side gets to speak for 1 minute.

The Senator from Nebraska and I both seek to repeal the provisions in the health care reform act referring to 1099. They are identical in that respect, but actually we go further and give more relief to small business than does the Senator from Nebraska.

The Johanns amendment would also give the unelected Director of the Office of Management and Budget the power to slash $33 billion in appropriated spending entirely at his own discretion, taking away the responsibility of the Congress. I do not think that is a good idea.

The Johanns amendment, thus, puts at particular risk slower spending accounts that fund vital purposes. The Johanns amendment puts at risk international narcotics control, law enforcement funding, $39 billion worth of funding solely in the discretion of the OMB Director, taking that power away from the Congress. I think that is a bad idea. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Johanns amendment.

Mr. President, this next vote is very simple. It repeals the 1099 provisions that we all said to small businesses that we are going to repeal. Purely and simply, it repeals 1099. I urge Members to vote to repeal, get this over with so we can move on to other business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff be allowed floor privileges during consideration of the food safety bill: James Baker, Mary Baker, Will Kellogg, Nicole Lemire, Deborah Ma, Brychan Manry, Nicole Marchman, Jack McGillis, Kane Ossorio, and Lisa Yen.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII, paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering the amendment no. 4713 to bill S. 510.

Mr. President, women are the backbone of the American family and a driving force of our economy. They are our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. Women are the heart of American families and local communities.

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and this October we have many reasons to reflect and celebrate. Thanks to the concerted efforts of the public and private sectors, we have come a long way to ensuring that women have long, healthy lives.

Twenty years ago, Congress created the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Today, the program provides screening services for breast and cervical cancer in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, five U.S. territories, and 12 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes and tribal organizations. Since the program got started, almost 4 million women have been served--giving them access to breast and cervical cancer screenings that they otherwise could not afford.

We have recently expanded opportunities for women across the country to be screened by including free preventive care, like mammograms and cervical cancer screenings, in the new health care reform law. The Affordable Care Act eliminates all insurance copays for these screenings, which means more women will have access to early detection and more women's lives will be saved.

This October, we are also celebrating the 30th anniversary of the beginnings of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, an organization founded on Susan's sister's promise to end breast cancer forever. Today, Susan G. Komen for the Cure is the largest source of nonprofit funds dedicated to the fight against breast cancer, investing nearly $1.5 billion in grassroots advocacy for quality care and research.

These efforts have made a big difference. In the last 30 years, we have improved the rate of cancer screenings--increasing the percentage of women over 40 who receive regular mammograms from less than 30 to nearly 75 percent. We have improved the treatment outcomes for women with cancer--increasing the 5-year survival rate from 74 percent to 98 percent. We have also increased the amount of Federal funding going toward breast cancer research, prevention, and treatment--ensuring that American women benefit from the best that science has to offer.

Despite these advances, it is estimated that nearly 40,000 women will die of breast cancer this year. That means that 40,000 American families will lose their mother or grandmother, sister or daughter. We cannot let up in this fight. We made a commitment to improving women's health in health reform--ending insurance industry abuses that have disproportionately affected women for decades, providing preventive benefits tailored to meet women's unique health needs, and ensuring women of all ages have access to comprehensive, high-quality coverage.

Improving women's health has a positive effect on the whole family. According to the Department of Labor, women make four out of five health care decisions for their families and are more likely to be the caregivers when family members are ill.

Improving women's health also has a positive effect on the economy. A healthy pregnancy, for example, begins with a healthy woman and leads to long, productive lives for mother and child.

We have come a long way, but we are not there yet. I am confident that with the consistent efforts of Congress and private sector groups such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, we will continue to make progress for years to come.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to help small businesses across America. The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act repeals recently enacted information reporting rules.

Known as ``the 1099 provision,'' these rules would have required businesses to file Form 1099 with the IRS to report payments made to corporations for goods and certain services with the hope that that better information would help the IRS collect more of the taxes that are legally owed, and in turn, keep taxes lower for all taxpayers.

Forms 1099 have been used by the IRS for decades to better track income. And in fact, this type of information reporting was proposed by the Bush administration to help better keep track of what businesses spend and earn, which helps better keep track of what they owe in taxes.

But it has become clear the new rules went too far.

As I traveled my home state of Montana, I listened to small business owners like Darrell Keck, owner of the Dixie Inn in Shelby. Darrell and his wife Jeanne run a tight ship, they are hard-working, and they pay their taxes. This is just one of many mom-and-pop businesses in Montana and throughout the country that told me they do not have the manpower or the software to make the new Form 1099 reporting rules work.

I have listened to small businesses, I have heard small businesses, and I am responding to small businesses by offering this bill for full repeal of the new information reporting requirements.

The time and expense for small businesses to comply with the new rules far exceed any benefit. Especially in these tough economic times, now is not the time to put additional stress on small businesses to meet complicated government rules. Small business is the backbone of the American economy--especially in Montana where more workers are employed by small businesses than anywhere else in the country. Business owners need to focus their efforts on growing their business and creating jobs--not filing paperwork.

As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, I remain committed to improving tax administration and enhancing voluntary tax compliance. When each person pays what he owes, our nation's system of voluntary tax compliance is fairer for everyone--without raising taxes on anyone. I look forward to working collaboratively with the small business community to improve the ability of small businesses to understand and meet their tax obligations.

Small businesses in Montana and all across America want to comply with the tax laws. But these new rules stretched their ability to do that. I urge my Colleagues to support their full repeal.

Mr. President, I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to help small businesses across America. The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act repeals recently enacted information reporting rules.

Known as ``the 1099 provision,'' these rules would have required businesses to file Form 1099 with the IRS to report payments made to corporations for goods and certain services with the hope that that better information would help the IRS collect more of the taxes that are legally owed, and in turn, keep taxes lower for all taxpayers.

Forms 1099 have been used by the IRS for decades to better track income. And in fact, this type of information reporting was proposed by the Bush administration to help better keep track of what businesses spend and earn, which helps better keep track of what they owe in taxes.

But it has become clear the new rules went too far.

As I traveled my home state of Montana, I listened to small business owners like Darrell Keck, owner of the Dixie Inn in Shelby. Darrell and his wife Jeanne run a tight ship, they are hard-working, and they pay their taxes. This is just one of many mom-and-pop businesses in Montana and throughout the country that told me they do not have the manpower or the software to make the new Form 1099 reporting rules work.

I have listened to small businesses, I have heard small businesses, and I am responding to small businesses by offering this bill for full repeal of the new information reporting requirements.

The time and expense for small businesses to comply with the new rules far exceed any benefit. Especially in these tough economic times, now is not the time to put additional stress on small businesses to meet complicated government rules. Small business is the backbone of the American economy--especially in Montana where more workers are employed by small businesses than anywhere else in the country. Business owners need to focus their efforts on growing their business and creating jobs--not filing paperwork.

As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, I remain committed to improving tax administration and enhancing voluntary tax compliance. When each person pays what he owes, our nation's system of voluntary tax compliance is fairer for everyone--without raising taxes on anyone. I look forward to working collaboratively with the small business community to improve the ability of small businesses to understand and meet their tax obligations.

Small businesses in Montana and all across America want to comply with the tax laws. But these new rules stretched their ability to do that. I urge my Colleagues to support their full repeal.

Mr. President, I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Sure.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa, the chairman of the HELP Committee, for his excellent service.

A weather vane shows when the wind is blowing and in what direction it is blowing and a resolution such as this shows when it is election season.

This resolution is a political stunt. It is an election-season effort to take potshots at the new health care reform law. Before the Senate now is a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of 1996. Colleagues will recall that the Congressional Review Act is part of what some folks called the Contract with America.

This particular resolution would nullify a regulation that is essential to implementing the new health reform law. The resolution is, thus, a transparent effort to undermine the new law. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

From the beginning, the new health care reform law has been about ending the worst insurance company abuses. That is why the new law requires insurance companies to end lifetime limits on coverage. That is why the new law prevents insurance companies from canceling coverage when you get sick. That is why the new law requires insurance companies to allow parents to put their children up to age 26 on their insurance policy, and that is why the new law prevents most insurance companies from discriminating against kids with preexisting conditions.

These important new protections took effect just last week. From the beginning, the law has been about preserving what is good about American health care. That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan, and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it.

Now some on the other side of the aisle have tried to pick apart that promise. They have tried to find some rare example to the contrary. But despite what some folks might say, we stuck to that promise. If you like your health care plan, you can pretty much keep it.

Then the question becomes: How can we be sure that what you have is still the same health care plan? What changes can the insurance plan make and still remain the same plan? That is what this new regulation is all about.

The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury promulgated this regulation on June 17. The regulation defines what changes an existing health care plan can and cannot make in order to retain what is called the ``grandfathered'' status.

The new health care reform law gives grandfathered plans special treatment. This treatment ensures that satisfied consumers can continue to get their current health care plans, and this treatment ensures that dissatisfied consumers can get access to a fairer marketplace.

Plans with grandfathered status get more time to incorporate some of the consumer protections guaranteed in the new health care reform law. Grandfathered status is valuable to the health insurance plans. In some cases, it exempts plans from having to make particular changes until the year 2014.

Some fundamental consumer protections, however, are so important that all plans have to comply with them right away. Many of those protections are the ones that became effective just last week. The new regulation strikes a careful balance. It protects consumers from some of the insurance companies' most egregious abuses. At the same time, it recognizes the realities of what insurers are able to do. That balance is important to maximizing consumer choice, and that balance is important to minimizing insurance market disruption.

The new regulation spells out coverage changes that would cause insurance plans to lose this special grandfathered status. For example, plans cannot significantly reduce benefits and still retain their grandfathered status. It makes perfect sense to require plans to maintain their benefits as a condition of their preferred status. After all, if a plan significantly reduces its benefits, it is not the same plan anymore. If a plan significantly reduces its benefits, the plan is not truly letting you keep what you have.

Another example under the new regulation is that plans cannot significantly increase cost sharing and retain their grandfathered status. In other words, plans cannot significantly increase deductibles, copays or coinsurance that are more than nominal.

Once again, the new regulation is only fair because plans should not be increasing the financial burden on consumers and still qualify for this special status. If a plan significantly increases the financial burden on consumers, it is not the same plan. If a plan significantly increases the financial burden on consumers, the plan is not letting you keep what you have.

A third example under the regulation is that plans cannot add new or more restrictive limits on coverage and remain grandfathered. This, too, makes sense, because imposing or lowering annual limits has the same effect as reducing benefits, and that is not something for which plans should be rewarded.

Once again, if a plan adds new or more restrictive annual limits on coverage, it is not the same plan and the plan is not letting you keep what you have. These examples demonstrate how reasonable the new rules for grandfathered status are. Plans basically have to offer the same coverage. They have to offer the same cost sharing and annual limits as they do today.

The resolution before us would allow health insurance plans to leave the path to full compliance with new, commonsense consumer protections. The resolution would leave consumers relying on the kindness of the insurance industry, and we have seen how well that works. That is the effect of the resolution before us.

The resolution before us would strike down disincentives for plans to cut benefits, increase consumers' out-of-pocket costs, or reduce how much health care a consumer may use in a year. The resolution before us would

thus free the health insurance companies to cut benefits, to increase out-of-pocket costs, and to reduce annual limits.

The new health care reform law aims to eradicate these abusive practices, and the grandfathering regulation ensures a successful transition to a fully reformed insurance market.

The new health reform law puts consumers and their doctors--not insurance companies--in charge of their health care.

This resolution would put consumers at risk. It would put consumers at risk of paying more and getting less. This resolution is the exact opposite of health care reform.

This resolution is a political stunt. It is about repealing health care reform in an election season. This resolution is an attempt by the other side to dismantle the new health care reform law piece by piece. This time, they are sending a message to their friends in the insurance industry. This resolution invites the insurance companies to continue to put profits before patients. So I ask: What is next?

The other side says they want to repeal and replace the new health care law, but we saw what happened before health care reform. Before health care reform, insurance companies could discriminate against kids with a preexisting health condition. Before health care reform, health insurance companies did not have to let adults under 26 stay part of their parents' health insurance plans. Before health care reform, health insurance companies could kick people off their rolls when they were sick and needed coverage the most. That is what the law was before the new health care reform law. Is that what the other side wants to go back to?

The bottom line is this resolution would take away consumer protections that the new health care reform law guarantees.

I urge my colleagues to reject the proposition that insurance companies know best. They don't know best. I urge my colleagues to maintain the commonsense consumer protections that have just come into effect, and I urge my colleagues to reject this election season resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want colleagues and those who read the Record to know that the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public the document entitled ``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586, Scheduled for Consideration by the House of Representatives on August 10, 2010.'' This document is an explanation of the education jobs and Medicaid funding bill that the Senate passed last month. This explanation reflects the intentions of the Senate and its understanding of the legislative text. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web site at http://www.jct.gov/publications.html? func=startdown&id=3702 and is listed as document number JCX-46-10.

In addition, I would like to comment on the Secretary's grant of authority to issue regulations in section 211 of the legislation, which adds new section 909 to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. I note that this grant of authority allows the Secretary to provide exceptions, as appropriate, from the application of the provision to certain foreign tax credit splitting events resulting from foreign consolidation regimes, group relief, or similar loss-sharing arrangements.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize an outstanding education leader from my home State of Montana. Les Meyer, principal of Fairfield High School in Fairfield, MT, has been recognized by the Montana Association of Secondary School Principals as the Montana Principal of the Year for 2010.

Les has served in the Fairfield school system for over 13 years, beginning as an English teacher in 1997 and since 2002 as the principal of Fairfield High School. Under his leadership the school has seen test scores and student achievement rise every year, while the dropout rate has fallen to almost zero. Les has expanded professional development opportunities to help his teachers do an even better job of educating our children. He is well liked and admired by the staff and students alike.

When Les was recognized as the Montana Principal of the Year, he humbly accepted the award and praised his teachers, staff, students, parents, and community members who have all contributed to the success of the young people in Fairfield schools. He noted how fortunate he is to be working in a community where folks take the education of their children seriously--a trait in communities across Montana both large and small.

There is nothing more important to Montanans than giving children the best opportunities to succeed in life. Providing our young people with a solid education is the best thing we can give them. The investments we make in our education system today will provide our children with the skills and knowledge to be successful in the 21st-century economy. Montana has some of the best teachers and principals in the country, and I look forward to working with Les and other education leaders across the State to make sure that we continue to keep the promise of a good education to our children.

Les also knows that life's lessons extend beyond the classroom. Since 2004, in addition to being principal, Les has served as the football coach for Fairfield High. Under his leadership, the team has advanced to four Class B State Championship games in the past 5 years. This season the Eagles are off to a 4 to 0 start and are ranked No. 1 in the State. Les works to instill in the young men on his team the importance of teamwork, being role models and good citizens in the community, and giving it their all both on the field and in the classroom. I wish Coach Meyer and the team the best of luck.

Les is in Washington, DC, this week along with other award winning principals from across the country who are being recognized for their achievements and are sharing their insights on how to make our education system even better. I congratulate Les on being chosen as the Montana Principal of the Year, and I applaud all our teachers, principals, and school administrators across Big Sky Country and thank them for their dedication to making our schools the best they can be.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen Montz of my staff be allowed floor privileges during the consideration of the S.J. Res. 39.