Floor Statements

Mr. President, I, too, wish to say some words on the passing of our good friend and former leader, Robert C. Byrd.

It is difficult to sum up in words the thoughts and feelings one has for a departed friend whom one has known so long. I had the pleasure of serving with Senator Byrd my entire career in the Senate. I knew, I liked, and I respected Robert C. Byrd for more than 30 years.

It is doubly difficult to put into words thoughts that adequately reflect such a presence in the Senate. Robert C. Byrd was a singular Senator. He was a Senator's Senator. There was no title he prized more than that of ``Senator.''

When I came to the Senate, Robert C. Byrd had succeeded my mentor, Mike Mansfield, as majority leader. As Robert Byrd was fond of noting, he served as majority leader and then minority leader and then back as majority leader. He saw the leadership of the Senate from both sides, and his experience seasoned his leadership.

As proud as he was to earn the title of ``Senator,'' he was even more proud that as a Senator he represented the people of his State. I deeply believe that is one of the finest things one can say about a fellow Senator. For more than 50 years, he was a strong voice for the people of West Virginia.

Robert Byrd was a strong voice for democracy. He knew the rules of the Senate better than any person alive. He fought to preserve the traditions and customs of what he truly believed is the world's greatest deliberative body.

As my colleagues know, Robert Byrd cast more votes than any other Senator in the history of our Republic. I can recall when he cast his 18,000th vote. That vote just happened to have been on a motion to invoke cloture on an amendment offered by this Senator. The Senate did not invoke cloture that day. That is the way the Senate's rules often work. No matter the outcome, Senator Byrd was foremost in the defense of those rules. And Senator Byrd was foremost in the defense of the Constitution of the United States.

Senator Byrd was a student of history more than any other Senator. Those of us who were here will not soon forget Senator Byrd's series of addresses to the Senate on the history of the Senate. And those of us who were here will not soon forget his series of addresses on the Senate of the Roman Republic. He knew that Senate too.

Senator Byrd was a teacher. I can recall meeting with Senator Byrd on a highway bill. He and I both long believed passionately in the importance of our Nation's highways. At this one occasion, I recall being impatient about enacting the highway bill on which we were working. I can also recall the sage advice Senator Byrd gave me about the process, about the procedures, and about the personalities of how to get that bill through the Senate. As I look back on that meeting, I think of all the occasions Senator Byrd took the time to teach others of us about the Senate. He taught his fellow Senators. He taught visiting dignitaries from other countries.

I might add parenthetically that it was not too many years ago when he was visiting Great Britain with some Senators and meeting with some Parliamentarians in Great Britain, and the subject of British monarchs came up, and it was only Senator Byrd who knew them all. He stood up, and he gave the name of every British monarch and the dates they served, up to the present. No other person in the room, including the members of the British Parliament, could do so. Robert C. Byrd did.

He taught class after class of Senate pages.

Robert Byrd will leave a legacy in the laws of the United States. He will leave a legacy in the rules and precedents of the Senate, and he will leave a living legacy in all the people who learned about the Senate at the knee of this great master.

Robert Byrd was an orator. One might say he was the last of a breed. He spoke in a style that recalled his roots before microphones and amplification. He spoke memorably. He spoke like orators used to speak.

Many of us recall celebrated speeches of Robert C. Byrd. I will read an extended quotation from one speech that

sums up Robert Byrd's strong feelings for the Constitution and the Senate he loved so well.

On October 13, 1989, many of us gathered to hear Robert C. Byrd speak. This is what Robert C. Byrd said:

Mr. President, I close by saying, as I began, that human

ingenuity can always find a way to circumvent a process. . .

. But I have regained my faith. We are told in the

Scriptures: ``Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy

fathers have set.''

The Constitution is the old landmark which they have set.

And if we do not rise to the call of the moment and take a

stand, take a strong stand against our own personal interests

or against party interests, and stand for the Constitution,

then how might we face our children and grandchildren when

they ask of us as Caesar did to the centurion, ``How do we

fare today?'' And the centurion replied, ``You will be

victorious. As for myself, whether I live or die, tonight I

shall have earned the praise of Caesar.''

And Robert C. Byrd concluded:

As [Aaron] Burr bade goodbye to the Senate over which he

has presided for 4 years, this is what he said. And I close

with his words because I think they may well have been

written for a moment like this. He said: ``This House is a

sanctuary; a citadel of law, of order, and of liberty, and it

is here--it is here--in this exalted refuge--here, if

anywhere, will resistance be made to the storms of political

phrensy and the silent arts of corruption; and if the

Constitution be destined ever to perish by the sacrilegious

hands of the demagogue or the usurper, which God averts, its

expiring agonies will be witnessed on this floor.''

So today, Mr. President, I will close my words for my friend, Robert C. Byrd, noting that in life he was victorious. As for myself, whether I succeed or not, whether I live or die, today I can count no greater praise than to say I served with Robert C. Byrd.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Merkley, Senator Tester, Senator Crapo, and others to introduce the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010. The bill authorizes much needed funds to implement toxics reduction projects throughout the basin, and it authorizes next steps in our longstanding effort to protect and preserve the transboundary Flathead Basin. The Columbia River Basin is one of the great water basins along our border with Canada that binds our two nations together. The river spans about 1,200 miles and travels through 14 dams from Columbia Lake, British Columbia all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Several of the major subasins of the Columbia are located in Montana, including the Kootenai, the Flathead, the Clark Fork, the Blackfoot, and the Bitterroot. Toxics contamination is a problem in several of these subasins, and I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010, which will authorize much needed resources to address toxics contamination.

The Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010 also includes the Transboundary Flathead Basin Protection Act of 2010. This part of the bill addresses the unique needs of one of the areas that I love about Montana. Everyone who experiences the North Fork of the Flathead in northwestern Montana is awed by its pristine waters, larger-than-life landscapes, and breathtaking views. With its headwaters in British Columbia, the North Fork of the Flathead River forms the western boundary of Glacier National Park--it is one of the last untouched places on our continent.

For decades, the North Fork has been threatened by oil and gas and mining proposals in British Columbia. For the last 35 years, I have battled these proposals, one by one. After 35 years of work, we are beginning a new chapter of international cooperation in our efforts to protect the North Fork.

In February of this year, British Columbia and Montana announced their intent to prevent mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development in the North Fork on the lands they control. This memorandum of understanding was a great foundation for additional efforts to establish protections that are permanent. Since 90 percent of the North Fork watershed is Federally-owned, Federal action is needed on the southern side of the U.S.-Canadian border.

So, on March 4, Senator Tester and I introduced the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, S. 3075, which bans future mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development on Federal lands in the watershed. The bill enjoys support from business and conservation interests alike from all over the State, including the Kalispell Chamber, Whitefish Mountain Resort, the Billings Rod and Gun Club, and a long list of others. This breadth of support shows the importance of the North Fork for Montana's economy as well as our State's outdoor heritage.

There are some current leases in the area that have been dormant since the late 1980s, when a court decision found that they were improperly issued. Senator Tester and I have been engaged in active discussions with the current owners to retire these old leases. On April 28, I was proud to announce that ConocoPhillips, the primary leaseholder in the North Fork watershed, elected to voluntarily relinquish its interest in 108 Federal oil and gas leases covering approximately 169,000 acres, representing 71 percent of the leased area in the North Fork watershed. On June 2, we announced that Chevron decided to voluntarily relinquish its interest in 11,000 acres of leases in the Flathead watershed. To date, we have managed to retire the primary interest in 180,000 acres in the North Fork watershed, free of charge to the American taxpayer.

These actions are further evidence of the consensus that exists between the United States and Canada and among businesses and conservationists, that the withdrawal of these Federal lands from leasing is the only path forward.

The transboundary Flathead section of the Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010 authorizes the next phase of our efforts to protect the Flathead. Just yesterday, the White House issued a statement that during the G20 meeting in Toronto, President Obama and Prime Minister Harper discussed the transboundary Flathead, recognizing the memorandum of understanding between British Columbia and Montana and exploring ways that the two governments can cooperate to ensure sustained protection of the North Fork. Senator Tester and I asked the President to discuss this issue with the Prime Minister on June 9th, and we are very pleased that the two made this a priority in light of the agenda at the G20. This commitment from the highest levels of government sets the stage for four-party talks between the United States, Canada, British Columbia, and Montana to establish permanent protections.

The Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010 takes three key steps to move things forward in the Flathead. Before I walk through those, it is important to recognize that this is an authorization bill. It authorizes specific actions by the Federal Government and authorizes appropriations in support of those actions. It is important to remember that Congress works in a two-step process--first the authorization, then, once signed into law, appropriations follow.

The bill authorizes the President to take steps to preserve and protect the transboundary Flathead River Basin. It is clear that the President has authority under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the Clean Water Act, and other statutes to take steps to prevent water pollution and protect wildlife in the transboundary Flathead. This section requires that the President act to meet these goals and provides explicit authority for the President to negotiate with Canada to ensure permanent protection for the North Fork and Glacier-Waterton National Park.

The bill authorizes the President, acting through appropriate agencies, to participate in cross-border collaborations and environmental assessments with Canada. Federal agency participation in such assessments is anticipated in the MOU between British Columbia and Montana, and our bill provides the authority for this to occur. Finally, the bill authorizes grants for baseline environmental studies, analysis of environmental impacts of any proposed projects, implementation of transboundary cooperative efforts, and other projects to protect and preserve the transboundary Flathead River Basin.

Funds for these and other purposes in the Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010 would be provided through the appropriations process, once this bill is signed into law.

Mr. President, I want to reflect for a moment on how far we have come in Montana in efforts to protect the North Fork. In 1975, during my very first term in the House of Representatives, I introduced a bill to designate the Flathead River as a Wild and Scenic River. It was designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1976.

For me, that began a lifelong effort to protect the North Fork. At that time I said:

A hundred years from now, and perhaps much sooner, those

who follow us will survey what we have left behind.

The retirement of current oil and gas leases in the Flathead, the Energy Committee's very positive hearing on April 28 on S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act 2010, President Obama's action yesterday with Prime Minister Harper, our introducing of this bipartisan legislation today and its eventual passage are all steps in a decades-long process to protect this gem of the continent.

I know that if we continue to cooperate with Canada, that if we can all keep our eye on the ball of long-term protection for the North Fork, that every Montanan, every American, and every Canadian who follows us will have the opportunity to share our feeling of awestruck wonder that such a place still exists, almost untouched by the modern world.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Merkley, Senator Tester, Senator Crapo, and others to introduce the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010. The bill authorizes much needed funds to implement toxics reduction projects throughout the basin, and it authorizes next steps in our longstanding effort to protect and preserve the transboundary Flathead Basin. The Columbia River Basin is one of the great water basins along our border with Canada that binds our two nations together. The river spans about 1,200 miles and travels through 14 dams from Columbia Lake, British Columbia all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Several of the major subasins of the Columbia are located in Montana, including the Kootenai, the Flathead, the Clark Fork, the Blackfoot, and the Bitterroot. Toxics contamination is a problem in several of these subasins, and I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010, which will authorize much needed resources to address toxics contamination.

The Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010 also includes the Transboundary Flathead Basin Protection Act of 2010. This part of the bill addresses the unique needs of one of the areas that I love about Montana. Everyone who experiences the North Fork of the Flathead in northwestern Montana is awed by its pristine waters, larger-than-life landscapes, and breathtaking views. With its headwaters in British Columbia, the North Fork of the Flathead River forms the western boundary of Glacier National Park--it is one of the last untouched places on our continent.

For decades, the North Fork has been threatened by oil and gas and mining proposals in British Columbia. For the last 35 years, I have battled these proposals, one by one. After 35 years of work, we are beginning a new chapter of international cooperation in our efforts to protect the North Fork.

In February of this year, British Columbia and Montana announced their intent to prevent mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development in the North Fork on the lands they control. This memorandum of understanding was a great foundation for additional efforts to establish protections that are permanent. Since 90 percent of the North Fork watershed is Federally-owned, Federal action is needed on the southern side of the U.S.-Canadian border.

So, on March 4, Senator Tester and I introduced the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, S. 3075, which bans future mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development on Federal lands in the watershed. The bill enjoys support from business and conservation interests alike from all over the State, including the Kalispell Chamber, Whitefish Mountain Resort, the Billings Rod and Gun Club, and a long list of others. This breadth of support shows the importance of the North Fork for Montana's economy as well as our State's outdoor heritage.

There are some current leases in the area that have been dormant since the late 1980s, when a court decision found that they were improperly issued. Senator Tester and I have been engaged in active discussions with the current owners to retire these old leases. On April 28, I was proud to announce that ConocoPhillips, the primary leaseholder in the North Fork watershed, elected to voluntarily relinquish its interest in 108 Federal oil and gas leases covering approximately 169,000 acres, representing 71 percent of the leased area in the North Fork watershed. On June 2, we announced that Chevron decided to voluntarily relinquish its interest in 11,000 acres of leases in the Flathead watershed. To date, we have managed to retire the primary interest in 180,000 acres in the North Fork watershed, free of charge to the American taxpayer.

These actions are further evidence of the consensus that exists between the United States and Canada and among businesses and conservationists, that the withdrawal of these Federal lands from leasing is the only path forward.

The transboundary Flathead section of the Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010 authorizes the next phase of our efforts to protect the Flathead. Just yesterday, the White House issued a statement that during the G20 meeting in Toronto, President Obama and Prime Minister Harper discussed the transboundary Flathead, recognizing the memorandum of understanding between British Columbia and Montana and exploring ways that the two governments can cooperate to ensure sustained protection of the North Fork. Senator Tester and I asked the President to discuss this issue with the Prime Minister on June 9th, and we are very pleased that the two made this a priority in light of the agenda at the G20. This commitment from the highest levels of government sets the stage for four-party talks between the United States, Canada, British Columbia, and Montana to establish permanent protections.

The Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010 takes three key steps to move things forward in the Flathead. Before I walk through those, it is important to recognize that this is an authorization bill. It authorizes specific actions by the Federal Government and authorizes appropriations in support of those actions. It is important to remember that Congress works in a two-step process--first the authorization, then, once signed into law, appropriations follow.

The bill authorizes the President to take steps to preserve and protect the transboundary Flathead River Basin. It is clear that the President has authority under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the Clean Water Act, and other statutes to take steps to prevent water pollution and protect wildlife in the transboundary Flathead. This section requires that the President act to meet these goals and provides explicit authority for the President to negotiate with Canada to ensure permanent protection for the North Fork and Glacier-Waterton National Park.

The bill authorizes the President, acting through appropriate agencies, to participate in cross-border collaborations and environmental assessments with Canada. Federal agency participation in such assessments is anticipated in the MOU between British Columbia and Montana, and our bill provides the authority for this to occur. Finally, the bill authorizes grants for baseline environmental studies, analysis of environmental impacts of any proposed projects, implementation of transboundary cooperative efforts, and other projects to protect and preserve the transboundary Flathead River Basin.

Funds for these and other purposes in the Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010 would be provided through the appropriations process, once this bill is signed into law.

Mr. President, I want to reflect for a moment on how far we have come in Montana in efforts to protect the North Fork. In 1975, during my very first term in the House of Representatives, I introduced a bill to designate the Flathead River as a Wild and Scenic River. It was designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1976.

For me, that began a lifelong effort to protect the North Fork. At that time I said:

A hundred years from now, and perhaps much sooner, those

who follow us will survey what we have left behind.

The retirement of current oil and gas leases in the Flathead, the Energy Committee's very positive hearing on April 28 on S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act 2010, President Obama's action yesterday with Prime Minister Harper, our introducing of this bipartisan legislation today and its eventual passage are all steps in a decades-long process to protect this gem of the continent.

I know that if we continue to cooperate with Canada, that if we can all keep our eye on the ball of long-term protection for the North Fork, that every Montanan, every American, and every Canadian who follows us will have the opportunity to share our feeling of awestruck wonder that such a place still exists, almost untouched by the modern world.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of the small business jobs bill:

Maia Aageson, Emilyn Anderson, Logan Baker, Mary Baker,

Andrew Fishburn, Benjamin Furnas, Anders Landgren, John

Merrick, Kristian Miller, Kathryn Spika, Greg Sullivan, Logan

Timmerhoff, Ashley Zuelke.

Madam President, we are on the message now.

First, I commend my colleague from Rhode Island for his efforts to enact legislation which will level the playing field. It is only proper that foreign companies that operate in the United States have the same ability of service of process that American companies have. I commend him and tell my friend from Rhode Island that at the first opportunity, I will work hard to include his provision in an appropriate bill so it can pass and be enacted into law.

I remind my colleagues that for several weeks now the Senate has been working to pass this important bill that is before us, the so-called extenders bill. This week marks at least the eighth week the Senate has spent most of the week on this bill to extend current tax law and safety net provisions.

This is a bill that would remedy serious challenges that American families face as a result of this great recession. This is a bill that works to build a stronger economy. Americans want that. It is a bill to put Americans back to work. Clearly, with national unemployment hovering around 10 percent, Americans want that, too.

With this bill, we have fought to pass policies to create jobs. We have fought for tax cuts for businesses. We have fought for small business loans. We have fought for career training programs, and we have fought for infrastructure investment.

We have fought to pass tax cuts for families paying for college. We have fought to pass tax cuts for Americans paying property taxes and sales taxes.

We have fought to extend eligibility for unemployment insurance, health care tax credits, and housing assistance for people who have lost their jobs.

As of this week, 900,000 out-of-work Americans have stopped receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Why? Because of the Senate's failure to enact this bill.

We have fought to help States cover the cost of low-income health care programs so that families in need can continue to get quality health care.

Unfortunately, this has been a difficult fight. I don't know why, but it has been difficult. Those provisions I mentioned are clearly provisions the American public would like.

For months now, we have been trying to address Senators' concerns. Senators expressed concern about the size

of the bill. So we cut the total size of the bill. We cut it from $200 billion to $140 billion. Then we cut further to $118 billion, then to $112 billion, then to less than $110 billion today.

We cut spending on health care benefits to unemployed workers under the COBRA program. We cut spending on the $25 bonus payments to recipients of unemployment insurance. We cut spending on the relief to doctors in Medicare and TRICARE. We have now cut spending on the help to States for Medicaid by one-third. We have provided additional offsets for the package. Senators requested that.

Since the first time the Senate passed this bill, we have sought and found more than $75 billion in new offsets, and the bill is now more than two-thirds paid for.

We have revised the carried interest provisions in at least eight different ways to address concerns raised by Senators.

We have modified the S corporation loophole closer to limit its effect on firms with fewer than four partners.

We heard Senators express an interest in more spending cuts. The substitute before us today comes forward with additional spending cuts.

We have fought mightily to adjust the bill to address Senators' concerns. But in the fight for this legislation, let's not lose sight of what the real fight is about. For many families, this is a fight for the roof over their heads. This is a fight for the food on their tables. This is a fight for the jobs they desperately need. And this is a fight for the opportunity they hope will come through.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to create jobs this economy needs. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment for the families who are counting on us to come through. I urge my colleagues, at long last, to pass this bill.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request which the Senator from Arizona will appreciate. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the Reid motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213 with the Baucus amendment No. 4386 occur at 5:14 p.m. today, with Senator Kyl recognized to speak for up to 2 minutes and Senator Baucus recognized to speak for up to 2 minutes prior to the vote.

Madam President, let us remember what this bill is all about. This bill will help American families face this great recession. This bill works to strengthen our economy and put Americans back to work. This bill would create jobs. That is what people want. It would cut taxes for businesses. That is what people want. It would facilitate small business loans. It would foster investment in highways and other infrastructure. This bill would cut taxes for families paying for college. It would cut taxes for teachers. It would cut taxes for Americans paying property taxes and sales taxes. It would extend unemployment insurance, health care tax credits, housing assistance for people who have lost their jobs. It would help States cover the cost of low-income health care programs.

This week, 900,000 out-of-work Americans have stopped receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Why? Because Congress has failed to enact this bill.

This has been a difficult fight, but it does not have to be difficult. In previous recessions, in previous Congresses, it was not this hard. But for months now, we have addressed Senators' concerns.

Senators expressed concern about the size of the bill. So we cut the total size from $200 billion, then down to $140 billion, then down to $118 billion, now less than $110 billion. We cut spending on health care benefits to unemployed workers under COBRA. We cut spending on the $25 bonus payments to recipients of unemployment insurance. We cut spending on the relief to doctors in Medicare and TRICARE. We cut spending on help to States for Medicaid by one-third. Senators asked for more spending cuts. We came forward with more spending cuts. Since the first time the Senate passed this bill, we found $77 billion in new offsets. This bill is now 70 percent paid for.

I just want to say that there is a great need for this bill. Americans want this bill passed, and, frankly, I very much hope this bill does pass. We do need the 60 votes.

We do not need the 60 votes; the American people want us to pass this legislation.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I note with great interest the comments of my good friend from Kentucky, Senator Bunning, about the need for coal- to-liquids technology. I agree. I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, as the Senator from Kentucky undoubtedly knows, I have urged this technology. He also knows regrettably the other body is opposed to this technology. We have had some difficulty in finding a way to resolve coal to liquids in both the House and the Senate.

I might say to my friend from Kentucky, I am not sure that adding this provision is going to speed the passage of the so-called extenders bill. In fact, I might tease my good friend from Kentucky by saying I think my friend from Kentucky is opposed to passage of the extenders bill.

Maybe, if I could ask the Senator, if he would support passage of the extenders bill?

Again, Mr. President, I am teasing. I ask my friend, somewhat in jest, if he were to fully support passage of the extenders bill if this provision he mentioned were in the bill? The fact is, we are having a hard time passing the extenders bill. Anything we add to the extenders bill is one more additional weight. I do not think that would further the passage of the bill at

this time. Rather, I think the appropriate place for coal-to-liquids technology will be in the Energy bill and there will be an Energy bill, of that I am positive. There is a question of what will be contained in that energy bill, but there will be one, I am sure, brought up on the floor of this body to help make this country more secure in its national energy position so we are less reliant on foreign countries to produce energy.

I also rise to call attention to a pair of disasters that recently struck Montana and pledge my support for the recovery effort. Last week the Big Sandy Creek spilled over its banks and flooded into the Lower Box Elder Road and the surrounding area. The flooding displaced 30 families at the Rocky Point Boy's Indian Reservation in north central Montana.

As is the tradition in our States, folks with the Chippewa Creek Tribe are pulling together to help one another. The Vo-Tech Center in Box Elder has been converted to a makeshift home for those left homeless by the flooding. The American Red Cross of Montana is providing beds and other services at that center. The area is still under a stage two flood advisory. I just talked to the chairman of the Rocky Boy's about half an hour ago, who told me there have been about 7 inches of rain there and he had an extremely difficult time with the water problems and sewage problems. Homes have been displaced. He has never seen anything like it.

Initial estimates exceed $1 million at this point. I will work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service to see that Rocky Boy's receives the assistance they need. I might add I will work with any agency that is relevant to make sure the people at Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation receive the assistance they need.

Just as folks at Rocky Boy's began assessing damage yesterday afternoon, another disaster beset Montana. A tornado with wind speeds between 111 and 135 miles an hour crashed into our State's largest city--Billings. Folks in Yellowstone County have not seen such a destructive twister since 1958.

The tornado hurled hail the size of golf balls, ripped the roof off our sports arena, the Metrapark--that is the largest facility, I might add, in Billings, MT. After striking it, it tore through a number of nearby small businesses. The tornado left a path of destruction in its wake--power outages, flooding in some places up to 2 feet of water. The winds damaged at least 10 businesses in Billings: the Main Street Casino, a laundromat, a dance studio, Reiter's Marina. The tornado also ripped the roof from Fast-Break Auto Glass. The roof was later found in a nearby creek. Witnesses saw big pieces of metal hanging from power lines near the arena. Insulation and metal debris was thrown far across town. One look at these photos gives one a sense of the size of the destruction.

I might add, if you look at the photo to my right, that is what is left of the Metra arena, Billings' largest facility. You can see the Metra almost entirely destroyed, roof completely gone, walls collapsing. I talked to two county commissioners and the mayor today and they explained the deep problems they have with reconstructing this facility, to say nothing about all the bookings that have been made about 2 years in advance that have to be dealt with because of this destruction.

The Metra sports arena is part of the fabric of life in Billings. Montanans gathered at the Metra to cheer on the Billings Outlaws, for example, an indoor football team. Fans say their home field advantage is recognized around the league. The arena also houses the Chase Hawks Memorial Rough Stock Rodeo. Lots of events take place in this arena. I was there a couple of months ago for a high school graduation. Event after event occurs, it seems, around the clock at this arena. It is totally destroyed by the tornado.

The Metra was also visited by American Presidents--President Kennedy, President Reagan, President Clinton, and President Bush. It is part of our State's history. In Montana we work together to solve problems and we will work together through this disaster as well. Yesterday, utility crews worked to shut off a gas leak at a commercial strip mall near Main Street. Crews were also working to repair downed power lines.

Yellowstone County requested a state of emergency, requested that declaration from our Governor last night. They were given an oral declaration and clearly will receive a written declaration today.

The Montana National Guard has deployed to the area to help keep security around the crumbling arena. I am committed to working with local officials, the Governor, as well as Senator Tester and Congressman Rehberg to coordinate any and all possible Federal assistance, coordinating with all Federal agencies to make sure all resources are available when requested. I have sent my staff to work with local and State officials on the ground to assess the extent of the damage and I will be there every step of the way during the recovery and rebuilding process.

My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Billings, particularly those injured during the storm and those whose property and homes were damaged by the winds.

Today, business owners are returning to the rubble that once was their place of business, their livelihood. Many homeowners are drying out as floodwaters recede. They will work hard in the coming days and months to make sure every Federal resource is made available to help folks in Billings as well as the Rocky Boy's Reservation as they recover from these twin disasters. Our officials have done this before and nobody can handle this better than the great team we have in Montana.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over the past several months, we have seen some improvement in our economy.

One year ago, in the first quarter of 2009, GDP was declining at an annual rate of more than 6 percent. Just 1 year later, in the first quarter of 2010, GDP grew at an annual rate of 3 percent.

This marks the third consecutive quarter of real economic growth.

It is not just the GDP that is growing. Consumer spending has risen at an annual rate of 3.5 percent this year. Manufacturing output rose 9 percent over the first 4 months of the year. Businesses have increased spending on equipment and boosted their inventory investments.

But one economic indicator continues to lag behind--employment.

The national unemployment rate stands at 9.7 percent. Over the course of this Great Recession, the American economy has lost more than 8 million jobs. In total, 15 million Americans remain out of work.

We must act to create jobs and get Americans back to work.

We began creating jobs with the 2009 Recovery Act. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that last year's Recovery Act added 1.2 to 2.8 million people to America's payrolls.

In March, Congress passed the HIRE Act. The HIRE Act, which includes a payroll tax exemption for new hires, should help to bolster job creation in the coming months.

This week, we are considering the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. That bill will create jobs by providing tax cuts and certainty to American businesses. It will create jobs by improving our nation's infrastructure. And it will create jobs by making direct investments in jobs for young adults and needy families.

After we consider the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, the Senate will consider a small business jobs bill. The Finance and Small Business committees are currently writing that bill.

Today, I am introducing another important jobs bill. This bill will extend bonus depreciation through 2010. I am introducing this extension as a stand-alone bill because of the unique ability of bonus depreciation to help businesses and create jobs.

In 2008, Congress temporarily allowed businesses to recover the costs of certain capital expenditures more quickly than under ordinary depreciation schedules. The 2008 law allowed businesses to immediately write off 50 percent of the cost of depreciable property placed in service in 2008.

The Recovery Act extended bonus depreciation. But the provision expired at the end of 2009.

My bill would extend bonus depreciation to property placed in service in 2010.

Bonus depreciation provides a double benefit. It helps two sets of businesses. It helps the business that purchases the equipment. It helps the business that sells the equipment.

The businesses that purchase equipment can write off those purchases more quickly.

This provides a significant tax savings. That savings makes equipment more affordable and encourages purchases.

The savings gained from expensing, rather than the slower depreciation, allows businesses to use that money to invest in the business itself. Businesses can use those savings to hire employees.

The more purchases that are made, the more other businesses are helped. This proposal will help manufacturers and suppliers to retain and hire employees as their businesses rebound.

I have heard from a number of business owners in Montana that bonus depreciation has been extremely helpful for their business.

An extension of bonus depreciation will boost economic activity by hundreds of millions of dollars. It will create hundreds of jobs in my home state of Montana.

Bonus depreciation is a cost-effective provision that provides real relief for businesses. Bonus depreciation creates jobs.

I urge my Colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. President, over the past several months, we have seen some improvement in our economy.

One year ago, in the first quarter of 2009, GDP was declining at an annual rate of more than 6 percent. Just 1 year later, in the first quarter of 2010, GDP grew at an annual rate of 3 percent.

This marks the third consecutive quarter of real economic growth.

It is not just the GDP that is growing. Consumer spending has risen at an annual rate of 3.5 percent this year. Manufacturing output rose 9 percent over the first 4 months of the year. Businesses have increased spending on equipment and boosted their inventory investments.

But one economic indicator continues to lag behind--employment.

The national unemployment rate stands at 9.7 percent. Over the course of this Great Recession, the American economy has lost more than 8 million jobs. In total, 15 million Americans remain out of work.

We must act to create jobs and get Americans back to work.

We began creating jobs with the 2009 Recovery Act. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that last year's Recovery Act added 1.2 to 2.8 million people to America's payrolls.

In March, Congress passed the HIRE Act. The HIRE Act, which includes a payroll tax exemption for new hires, should help to bolster job creation in the coming months.

This week, we are considering the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. That bill will create jobs by providing tax cuts and certainty to American businesses. It will create jobs by improving our nation's infrastructure. And it will create jobs by making direct investments in jobs for young adults and needy families.

After we consider the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, the Senate will consider a small business jobs bill. The Finance and Small Business committees are currently writing that bill.

Today, I am introducing another important jobs bill. This bill will extend bonus depreciation through 2010. I am introducing this extension as a stand-alone bill because of the unique ability of bonus depreciation to help businesses and create jobs.

In 2008, Congress temporarily allowed businesses to recover the costs of certain capital expenditures more quickly than under ordinary depreciation schedules. The 2008 law allowed businesses to immediately write off 50 percent of the cost of depreciable property placed in service in 2008.

The Recovery Act extended bonus depreciation. But the provision expired at the end of 2009.

My bill would extend bonus depreciation to property placed in service in 2010.

Bonus depreciation provides a double benefit. It helps two sets of businesses. It helps the business that purchases the equipment. It helps the business that sells the equipment.

The businesses that purchase equipment can write off those purchases more quickly.

This provides a significant tax savings. That savings makes equipment more affordable and encourages purchases.

The savings gained from expensing, rather than the slower depreciation, allows businesses to use that money to invest in the business itself. Businesses can use those savings to hire employees.

The more purchases that are made, the more other businesses are helped. This proposal will help manufacturers and suppliers to retain and hire employees as their businesses rebound.

I have heard from a number of business owners in Montana that bonus depreciation has been extremely helpful for their business.

An extension of bonus depreciation will boost economic activity by hundreds of millions of dollars. It will create hundreds of jobs in my home state of Montana.

Bonus depreciation is a cost-effective provision that provides real relief for businesses. Bonus depreciation creates jobs.

I urge my Colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. President, I very much appreciate this development. This is very important. Now doctors will be paid. More important, seniors will get the benefits they deserve. Payments under TRICARE will now go out. Military who participate in TRICARE, the retired military program, will get their benefits because that is all tied together. It is important because this provision expired June 1, this month, and it is about the last day for the payments to be paid; otherwise, there would be a 21-percent reduction in payments to physicians, and many providers would not provide the services to seniors, or even Medicaid, for that matter. So it is very important that we are taking this action this day; otherwise, there would be near chaos in the absence of medical care and procedures.

I appreciate the cooperation on both sides of the aisle in working this out. This is all paid for. This is not deficit

spending, which I think is critical to many. Third, it is a good omen. I hope we can take this cooperation and work out the rest of the so- called extenders bill together on both sides of the aisle. I am very pleased with this development. I thank the majority leader and the minority leader for working this out. Now we can put this issue aside and doctors will be paid, seniors will get the benefits they deserve, and we can go on to work cooperatively to finalize the rest of the bill.

I thank my friend.

Madam President, once again, we are here today to try to help create jobs. That is what the underlying bill and substitute amendment are all about.

But the Thune amendment would move in the wrong direction. Instead of helping to create jobs, the Thune amendment would probably cost jobs.

The Thune amendment would reduce aggregate demand in the economy by more than $50 billion. Instead of continuing the good that the Recovery Act has done, the Thune amendment would stop it in its tracks.

The Thune amendment would, among other things, cancel unspent and unallocated mandatory spending in the Recovery Act.

The Recovery Act is working.

This is what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in its most recent report:

CBO estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year

2010, [the Recovery Act's] policies:

Raised the level of real . . . gross domestic product . . .

by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent;

Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage

points and 1.5 percentage points;

Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2

million and 2.8 million; and

Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.8

million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would

have been otherwise.

And the Congressional Budget Office projects that the Recovery Act will continue to create jobs. CBO projects that the Recovery Act will create the most jobs in the third quarter of this year. And then it will begin to taper off.

We should not cut that job creation off. In this fragile economy, the last thing that we should want to do is to cut back this proven job creator.

We passed the Recovery Act to give a needed boost to our economy. We designed the bill to work over 2 years. If we were to withdraw these critical funds, we would risk causing further damage to a fragile economy.

The Thune amendment would also cut other important spending programs.

The Thune substitute amendment would cut discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board for all agencies, except for the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense.

This 5 percent cut would apply to the Department of Homeland Security. It would apply to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Apparently, it would apply to the intelligence agencies.

The Thune substitute amendment would freeze the salaries of all Federal employees, except for members of the Armed Forces.

It would freeze the salaries of civilian defense workers. It would freeze the salaries of law enforcement. It would freeze the salaries of border protection agents.

Another provision would cap the total number of federal employees at current levels. If an agency needed to hire a new employee, it would first need to fire an existing employee. That is not how to create jobs. This would dramatically reduce the flexibility of agencies to make hiring decisions.

I support finding ways to make our government more efficient. But these cuts are arbitrary. They are mindless meat-ax cuts.

The Thune amendment would also make changes to the new health care law. These changes would leave more Americans without health insurance. The Thune amendment would do this by expanding the affordability exception to the responsibility for individuals to buy health insurance.

This expansion would eliminate coverage for millions of Americans. And CBO tells us that this would raise health care premiums.

The irony of this proposal is that it raises money for the government because the government would not provide as much in tax credits to Americans to help them buy insurance.

But Congress has just enacted health care reform. Congress just expressed our Nation's commitment to helping all Americans to buy health insurance. We should let the new health care law take effect.

The Thune amendment would also propose changes to our medical malpractice system that the Senate has rejected many times.

The Thune amendment would cap damages and make other changes to State laws. This is the not the solution to medical malpractice.

The Congressional Budget Office has said that these kinds of ideas would generate savings. But we need to ask: At what cost?

What would be the cost to patients? What would be the cost to the States?

CBO relied on outside studies in calculating its cost estimate. And those same studies point out that certain tort reform policies may also increase the number of risky procedures performed. And these policies may lead to more patient injuries and more patient deaths.

One study upon which CBO relied said that these policies would lead to a 0.2-percent increase in mortality. These policies in the Thune amendment could lead to more patient deaths.

That is an awfully high price to pay.

Our Nation's civil liability system has always been forged at the State level. Nationalizing that system with damage caps would put patients at risk.

The Thune amendment employs some of the offsets that it does because it drops the oil spill liability tax. And the Thune amendment employs some of the offsets that it does because it drops the tax loophole closers in the underlying substitute amendment.

The Thune amendment thus would allow big oil companies to pay less into the oil spill liability trust fund, to pay for oil spills.

The Thune amendment thus would allow investment managers to continue to pay lower capital gains tax rates on their service income than other Americans do on their wages.

The Thune amendment thus would allow some professionals who organize as S corporations to avoid paying their fair share of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.

And the Thune amendment thus would allow multinational corporations to continue accounting dodges to avoid paying their fair share of taxes here in America.

These decisions reflected in the Thune amendment are bad tax policy. These decisions preserve unfairness and inequity in the tax law.

And so, the Thune amendment would put the recovery at risk by curtailing the Recovery Act. It would cut the number of Americans with health insurance and raise premiums. It would nationalize medical malpractice law, putting patients at risk. And it would protect big oil and multinational corporations that ship their jobs overseas.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Thune amendment.

Madam President, I might ask if the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to speak.

Sure.

Madam President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

I yield as much time as the Senator wishes to consume.

Reserving the right to object, I may say to my friend from South Dakota that this sounds a lot like wage price controls, where the Congress is trying to decide the wages of all kinds of different sectors based on, I don't know what. A lot of trap lines have to be run before this request can be granted. So at this point, Madam President, I object.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally divided.

Madam President, I might ask the Senator from South Dakota, through the Chair, whether he wishes to renew his request to modify his amendment because I might tell him, through the Chair, that the amendment has been cleared on this side.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally divided.

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

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

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

How much time is remaining to each side?

There is 20 minutes 40 seconds on our side; zero seconds on the other side?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, actually I think we are going to probably vote earlier than that. I just wonder how much time is remaining on the other side?

No time remaining on the other side. There is no time on the side of those who wish to speak in favor of the amendment.

And no time remaining on the side of those who wish to speak in favor of the Thune amendment?

There is about 15 minutes remaining on this side. I wonder if my friend from South Dakota, who wishes to speak in favor of the amendment, even though his time has expired, may want to speak favorably about the Baucus substitute, or, if he wishes to speak on his own amendment, he can point out some of the good points of the Baucus substitute at the same time; otherwise, I have no objection.

But to be fair to my side, too, and given the time constraints that we might have, I can only give 2\1/2\ minutes.

Madam President, I think it is good to again remind my colleagues what is in the Thune amendment and why it is not good policy and why it should not be adopted. First of all, it would call for a 5- percent cut in most of government. The Defense Department is exempt; the Veterans Department is exempt but not other sections. Homeland Security comes to mind. Law enforcement comes to mind. Border Patrol comes to mind. There are various areas that would be cut 5 percent across the board arbitrarily.

Second, it would impose harsh caps on medical malpractice damages, the so-called tort reform. The Thune amendment includes tort reform in a way that is unthought through, very harsh caps that would, frankly, result, according to the CBO, in more deaths in America.

The Thune amendment would also cut the number of people insured under health care reform. It would reduce the number of people insured under health care reform. I do not think many people would like that part of the Thune amendment to stand alone and of itself.

Moreover, the Thune amendment cuts back Recovery Act funds. That endangers jobs. The Congressional Budget Office made it very clear that the Recovery Act does create jobs; it lowers unemployment. The Thune amendment would go in the opposite direction of preventing job creation, of encouraging high unemployment. That would be the effect of it.

The Thune amendment also shields the oil companies and multinational corporations from paying their fair share of taxes. I do not think, especially with the gulf oilspill, many Americans want to shield the oil companies from paying their fair share of taxes, from paying funds into an oil liability trust fund to pay for future oilspills. I think Americans also do not want to shield multinational corporations from paying their fair share of taxes.

There are loopholes in current law that multinationals take advantage of. I think most Americans would not like these loopholes to continue. The Thune amendment continues those loopholes.

So for all of those reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to not support the Thune amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time, and I raise a point of order against section 701 of the Thune amendment pursuant to section 403 of S. Con. Res 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213 with an amendment be modified to provide for

technical changes to my amendment which are at the desk.

I renew the request and let the leader reserve the right to object again. The modification is to provide that the enterprise value, the good will of a partnership interest which is sold, would be valued at 50 percent cap gains, 50 percent ordinary income. That is the provision those in the industry who cared about carried interest agreed to. That was the intent in the underlying substitute amendment. Unfortunately, when the amendment was drafted, there was a glitch which did not fully provide for what I just described. It is my full intent for the substitute amendment to provide for what I just stated; namely, that the good will value, enterprise value of the sale of a partnership interest, be valued at 50 percent cap gain and 50 percent ordinary income. It is unfortunate that we are unable to make that change.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 17, 2010.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 17, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 17, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Leveling the Playing Field: Protecting Workers and Businesses Affected by Misclassification'' on June 17, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 17, 2010, at 3 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 17, 2010, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Indian Education: Did the No Child Left Behind Act Leave Indian Students Behind?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 17, 2010, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 17, 2010, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Harnessing Small Business Innovation: Navigating the Evaluation Process for Gulf Coast Oil Cleanup Proposals.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 17, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy, Science, and Transportation of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate at 9:30 a.m. on June 17, 2010, in SR-328A.

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