Floor Statements

Mr. President, I strongly endorse the suggestions made by the majority leader as well as by the Senator from New Jersey and also thank the Senator from New Jersey for pushing these measures so aggressively, the cotton trust fund and wool, and also, to some degree, the citrus which is part of this.

I support these provisions. I support the cotton trust fund, support it strongly. I am working diligently to try to find the right vehicles so we can get this passed--the cotton trust fund passed this year. I deeply appreciate the strong passion on this by Senator Menendez. He has come to me many times in looking for an opportunity to pass this.

I deeply appreciate that. This place works on basic comity. Sometimes the pathways to get to a result are not well known and difficult to see, initially. But I am quite confident we are going to find a way to get this cotton trust fund passed this year. The Senator has my support to make that happen.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a remarkable Montanan and American. John W. Mahan, or Jack as we all knew him, died peacefully on Independence Day, July 4, at his home in Helena, MT. He was my neighbor and friend. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in honoring Jack and offering condolences to his family and loved ones.

The Fourth of July was a fitting day for this World War II veteran and lifelong national veterans' advocate to leave this world. Majority leader Mike Mansfield, a veteran of World War I, once said that Jack Mahan ``has done more for the veterans of Montana and the nation than any other man I know.''

Jack was born into a family dedicated to national service. His father, John Senior, served as the national commander of the Disabled American Veterans as a brigadier general. John Senior later served as Montana's adjutant general. Jack's mother Iola served as president of the American Legion Auxiliary in Helena.

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Jack enlisted in the Navy Air Corps. Jack went on to bravely serve as a dive bomber pilot in the Pacific during World War II.

After the war, Jack took the lead on tackling challenges facing his fellow World War II veterans in Montana and across the country.

Jack fought for bonuses for WWII veterans--a practice that was done after WWI to help get returning troops back on their feet.

Although, the Montana Supreme Court declared these ``bonus'' payments unconstitutional, Jack worked with veterans groups and Montana officials to build popular support and eventually secured an ``honorarium'' payment instead of a ``bonus.'' Jack's ``honorarium,'' paid for by a 2-cent tax on cigarettes, raised $22 million for World War II veterans. In today's dollars, that is $226 million.

In the late 1950s, Jack led the way in establishing the veterans hospital at Fort Harrison, west of Helena.

Again, Jack worked with Montanans, veterans groups, and Members of Congress to raise $5.4 million to begin the first phase of building for the hospital.

Today, Montana veterans still rely on the hospital in Fort Harrison for their basic medical needs.

During his work, Jack met the acquaintance and earned the respect of Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford.

Jack had a truly remarkable life and career of service to our country. He served as the national commander-in-chief of Veterans of Foreign Wars from 1958 to 1959.

He served as the national chairman of the Veterans for John F. Kennedy's Presidential campaign committee in 1960. He also served as the under secretary to the VA Memorial Services and Director of the National Cemetery System in the Nixon administration.

On this very day, we have brave Americans patrolling the mountains of Afghanistan. May Jack's memory be a reminder of the obligation we owe to these brave warriors when they come home. His legacy is a reminder of what dedicated public service can deliver for our Nation's finest. We will miss you, Jack.

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object and would like to make a statement.

I am basically opposed to the Senator's request, and let me explain why. The Finance Committee considered this bill last week, and we passed it out of committee by a voice vote without a single amendment being offered. Nobody on the committee offered an amendment. I think we cannot and should not delay the passage now. It passed unanimously, no amendments offered, and now is not the time to delay.

This bill is fully offset. How? By extending customs user fees and corporate timing shift. This is not the first time we have used the corporate timing shift as an offset. I have a list--a very long list-- of the many times when this body has used this very same provision and very same offset. In fact, it has been used multiple times since 2005 in trade bills and lots of other bills, so there is much precedent.

I, nonetheless, understand Senator Coburn now has concerns about the offset, and I am willing to work with him to find alternate offsets in future trade measures. We need to move forward on this bill in its entirety as soon as possible. We can't pick and choose to move forward on component parts while leaving others to linger. There are real consequences for delay.

This bill extends provisions of the African Growth and Opportunity Act--otherwise known as AGOA--trade preference program that would otherwise expire in September. Without swift passage of this bill, U.S. retailers do not have the certainty they need to place orders with African apparel manufacturers. Not only are these U.S. companies struggling to make the best decisions for their companies, but a substantial drop in orders has caused devastating job losses in Africa. The job losses are occurring why? Because of the uncertainty as to whether this provision will be extended. Right now the Senator from Oklahoma suggests we don't proceed.

Another provision of this bill closes a loophole in the Dominican Republic-Central American-United States Free Trade Agreement that will save almost 2,000 yarn-spinning jobs in North Carolina and in South Carolina. And the Burma sanctions provision expires today. These provisions are all necessary parts of the delicate compromise we negotiated in advance with the House and that the Senate Finance Committee approved. Ways and Means Chairman Camp in the House and Ranking Member Levin in the House have made it equally clear they will not pass this bill in the House without the AGOA provisions included. So the House will not pass these provisions if the Senator is successful.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to pass S. 3326 as it passed from the Finance Committee, quickly and without amendment. For those reasons, I must object.

Mr. President, I very much understand the frustration of the Senator from Oklahoma, and I understand his reasons for objecting. In a perfect world, I might be sympathetic with his reasons, but this is not the perfect world. This is a world where we try to do our best to do our work and get legislation passed.

I personally don't have a problem with the Senator's suggestion that we could set 30 minutes aside and vote on his amendment as an alternate way to pay. I think the Senator understands this bill is fully paid for already. It is just the Senator would like it paid for in a different way.

The problem I have in trying to arrange all this and put it together is I can't control other Senators. Other Senators may object to the Senator's provision. They may have their own bills. In fact, I can think of two or three right now who would very much take advantage of a process where the Senator from Oklahoma strips out the bill and offers his own pay-for because they would say: Oh gosh, this is now an opportunity for me to offer mine. That is what they will say to themselves, and then we are really stuck because the Burma provisions expire, as the Senator knows, today. We can't dally. We can't wait. The AGOA provision expires at the end of September.

Now, one could say: Well, wait until the end of September. Unfortunately, a lot of American companies are uncertain whether we are going to extend past the September 30 date, and they are laying off people. Lots of job losses are already occurring as a consequence of the uncertainty. So my job, in putting together these several bills-- including PNTR for Russia--in the committee was to talk to Senators and try to find an accommodation where we could get it passed.

I totally agree with the Senator on his main point; namely, how much fraud and waste there is and that it should be addressed and how important it is to get the debt down. As the Senator knows, yesterday, in committee, we talked about ways to address the so-called fiscal cliff, the very beginnings of the Finance Committee's finding solutions to the debt and some kind of grand bargain in the form of tax reform.

The Senator is correct. He did file amendments with alternative offsets, and I did state the amendments would be ruled nongermane. That is true. In my judgment, they were not germane. And he did suggest at that time that he wanted to offer an amendment on the Senate floor. As I said, I am not personally opposed to having a vote on the Senator's amendment as long as there is a limited time of debate. But I do think and believe others will object, and they will want to have their provisions passed. I just believe at this point it makes sense to proceed with AGOA, the DR-CAFTA bill, and the Burma bill, and deal with how we do offsets at a future date, not right now because it just gums up too much else.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I very much appreciate and admire the efforts of the Senator from Kentucky to keep proposing sanctions on Burma. In fact, the Senator will remember that 3 or 4 months ago I went out of my way to praise the Senator when he stood up for Burma. In fact, he may remember his press office called my office to say thank you. Gosh, Senator Baucus thanked the leader, and I meant it. I very much admire the effort and the way the Senator has undertaken to maintain these sanctions.

We are all very proud of Aung San Suu Kyi for winning the Nobel Prize, in London, when she visited Europe not long ago. I remember watching her on television. She has done so much for her country and stood so much for the people of Burma. It is astounding. I have not had the privilege of meeting her personally, but I have watched her from afar and with great admiration and not only would thank her but again thank the Senator for his efforts.

One can say the other matters are unrelated, but one could also say the Burma issue is riding along with the AGOA bill. There are thousands of African women who have lost their jobs because we have not acted on the AGOA bill, and they tend to be single moms--thousands--because they can't get orders to sell in the United States. Consequently, jobs in the United States now are in jeopardy because the AGOA bill has not been extended.

It is true the AGOA bill does not expire until the end of September. That

is true. However, as a practical matter, these women have lost their jobs already because American companies are not taking orders from African countries that are providing the apparel that are otherwise provided for under the AGOA bill. It is a huge issue for those African women who have lost their jobs as well as a lot of American companies that are in jeopardy because they can't receive the apparel from the African companies if this is not extended.

I might say, too, the DR-CAFTA bill is similar. That puts in jeopardy a lot of jobs in South Carolina and North Carolina. So in a certain sense it is a jobs bill. Both these bills are important. They are very important. This package was put together and agreed to by Senators on the committee, Republicans and Democrats both. It was agreed to by leadership offices, both sides. We worked hard, as the leader often does, to get consensus around here. So this was the thought, to put the bills together, and all Republicans agreed.

There was one Senator who said he had a problem with one of the pay- fors, and, frankly, it is a pay-for this body has adopted many times. That Senator himself has voted for this pay-for many times. It just seems to me, if we break up the package, then the package is broken and it puts in jeopardy those other provisions because Senators will want to offer amendments. The Senator from Kentucky well knows, once we start going down that road, things get hung up around here; the main point being these are both very important bills, and the other main point being it was agreed to. This package was agreed to all the way around, and I think at this point it does not make sense to break it up.

So I object.

Mr. President, I do not want to belabor the point. The Obama administration is opposed to splitting the package apart. They are in favor of keeping the package as it is, and I think for good reason because the administration favors both Burma as well as AGOA and DR-CAFTA. That is the reason. They are both very important. It is for that reason I think it makes sense.

The Senator is correct. It is very easy to resolve this thing by proceeding with Burma and AGOA. But if the leader wants to keep talking, I am more than willing, over the next week, to see if there is another resolution to work this out.

That is not what the Senator heard me say.

Because the administration and I want them both.

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

Mr. President, I don't mean to belabor the issue. I see the Republican leader has left the floor. I have just a couple of points.

One, I don't want the impression to be left here that this is a partisan matter. I don't want the impression to be left here that one party favors Burma sanctions and the other doesn't, and the same with respect to AGOA provisions. The fact is, these are both totally bipartisan. Both political parties favor these measures. It is just a matter of working out a way to pass them.

The Senator from Delaware has made a very good point, so let's see if we can work things out within the next couple or 3 days.

The Senator from Oklahoma makes a very valid point, too; that is, sometimes we pay for measures around here with measures that take several years to actually pay for. It is a common practice around here. And to say we have done it once does not necessarily mean it is right.

But I say to my good friend from Oklahoma, who has voted for this kind of measure 11 times, by my count, and once even on the Burma bill, that when we work over the next several weeks and next several months on resolving the fiscal cliff and tax reform, it will be a good opportunity to find ways to reduce our budget deficits, both spending and revenue, and an opportunity to address it in a way that does not do violence to them and that respects the concept the Senator from Oklahoma was mentioning. He has mentioned a

concept that applies not just with respect to customs user fees but for a lot of tax provisions around here, and I think it is something we should talk about and figure out how we want to handle it. But in the meantime, I just suggest that--let's keep talking. There are a few days left here before we leave for the August recess.

I thank my colleagues for working together to try to find a solution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying:

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth,

they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The

great point is to bring them the real facts.

There have been a number of inaccurate claims over the past several weeks accusing Democrats of proposing tax hikes. Nothing could be further from the truth. So let me set the record straight, as Lincoln said, and bring them the real facts.

Democrats are proposing to extend a tax cut for 100 percent of taxpayers. Under the Democratic proposal, all taxpayers get a tax cut. Those lower income, those middle income, and those upper income all get a tax cut. Everyone does. Millionaires get a tax cut under the Democratic proposal, billionaires get a tax cut under the Democratic proposal, and all taxpayers who pay ordinary income tax are going to get a tax cut.

Why is that? It is very simple. Because even if your income is above $200,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a family, you are still getting a tax cut for your first $200,000 of income or the first $250,000 of income. So you are getting a tax cut. Everybody is getting a tax cut. I want to make that clear: All Americans get a tax cut under the Democratic proposal.

Even though the most wealthy are also getting a tax cut under the Democratic proposal, those on the other side of the aisle want to give an even greater tax cut to those earning above $200,000 as individuals or $250,000 as a couple. So let me repeat: Everyone gets a tax cut under the Reid bill. The other side of the aisle says: Okay, maybe that is so, but they want to give an even greater tax cut to those earning over $250,000. That is the fact.

An awful lot of people think the Democratic bill does not cut taxes for those above $200,000 and $250,000. It does. It does. The facts are clear. The numbers don't lie. It does. Everyone gets a tax cut. So there should be no question about that.

As I said, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are threatening to oppose a middle-income tax cut, which actually is a tax cut for everybody. They say, oh, no, don't do that. They say, do that, but then add a greater tax cut for those top 2 percent of the wealthiest of Americans.

But let's go back and ask ourselves why are we here, in part? These tax reductions were instituted in 2001, at a time when our country had record surpluses. I think the total tax cut in 2001 was projected to be about--I may be off a little here--$1.5 or $1.6 trillion over 10 years, at a time when our Nation had a projected surplus of about $3 trillion or up to $5 trillion. I have forgotten exactly, but it was way above the 2001 tax cut. That is why, in large part, the 2001 Congress decided, well, we have these big projected surpluses, so let's give some of it back to the people. I voted for it.

That is why I voted for it. It made sense to me--with the great projected surpluses--to take a little less than half of that and give it back to people in terms of tax cuts.

But times have changed. In the wake of two wars that have cost over $1 trillion, unpaid for--Iraq and Afghanistan--and also the 2008 financial collapse that very much hurt our economy, times have changed since 2001. As a consequence, our Nation now is faced with record debt, and we cannot continue to spend money we don't have. We have to put our Nation back on solid fiscal ground. So a lot has happened since 2001.

In addition, something else has happened, regrettably. Today, the average household income indexed for inflation is lower than it was when the tax cuts for the wealthy were put into effect. This means more people are making less money now than they were when these cuts were signed into law. Today, American families have less money to spend on their mortgages, gasoline, and groceries, for example. Actually, including benefits, Americans are not as well off as they were 10, 15 years ago.

These cuts were enacted in 2001 for all Americans. Those top two rates for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans has cost future generations nearly $1 trillion. I think it is bad economics to continue these highest income tax cuts without evidence they actually solve America's economic woes. They don't. It is especially bad economics when our Nation's debt has increased by $10 trillion since they were first enacted.

Hard choices need to be made as we work to get our debt back to sustainable levels. We are all going to be asked to contribute. We need to make sure the most fortunate pay their fair share to deficit reduction as well. Again, they are already getting a tax break under the Democratic proposal. Everyone gets a tax cut under the Democratic proposal, but it is wrong to go further and say those making above $250,000 should be getting an even greater tax cut.

With a greater contribution from them, we could more easily work to get our Nation's debt down to manageable levels.

Some have argued we cannot let the tax rates expire for the wealthiest Americans--the top 2 percent--because they are ``small business owners.'' Let me address that and marshal the facts, as Abraham Lincoln would ask us to do.

Being wealthy is not the same as being a small business owner. One can be very wealthy in America but not be a small business owner. Some might have us believe there are 1 million small business owners earning over $200,000 a year. How do they get that number? They get that number from an estimate prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a bipartisan group that gives us accurate data--both Republicans and Democrats, Senators and House Members.

The Joint Committee predicts that in 2013 there will be about 940,000 taxpayers with some business income in the upper two tax rates. But that Joint Committee estimate isn't the number of small businesses. That is a different number. Instead, it is the number of all individuals in the top two rates who receive any amount of income, from a passthrough business or from rental real estate, royalties, estates or trusts. That number of 940,000 taxpayers does not tell us whether the taxpayer spent any amount of time actually working in the business or if that taxpayer is merely an investor sitting on the sidelines. In addition, that number does not tell us whether the income is from a large business or from a small business. It can be a large business passthrough. So that number of 940,000 doesn't tell us is it large or is it small. It does not tell us if the business actually even employs anybody. We don't know that. There are a lot of taxpayers at that bracket who don't employ anybody. They are not small businesspeople.

So that 1 million number being thrown around includes taxpayers who, for example, invest in publicly traded partnerships which can be purchased on the New York Stock Exchange similar to any other stock. They are not small businesses as ordinary Americans think them to be. The 1 million number also includes celebrities and sport stars who receive income from speaking engagements. They are not small businesspeople, but yet they are lumped into that same number. Americans wouldn't regard sports celebrities as a small businessperson. That is not right.

That 1 million number also includes best-selling authors receiving royalties for book sales. That 1 million number includes partners in law firms and hedge funds who receive their income as a share of a partnership distribution. They are not a small business. The 1 million number also includes

wealthy individuals who rent out their vacation homes for just a few weeks a year.

Both President Obama and Governor Romney would be considered small business owners in 2011 under this definition. I wouldn't think they are small businesspeople, Americans don't think they are small businesspeople, but they would be included in the definition the other side bandies about.

In reality, only a very small fraction of the top earners actually own or control or manage a business that is small and has hired anyone. I have forgotten the exact number, but it is a small number. It isn't sound fiscal policy to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans just because a small portion of them have income from a business and a tiny portion of them manage a small business. But that is what some would have us believe. I don't have the number with me, but it is very small. There aren't very many at all.

Finally, the argument that higher taxes on the wealthiest hinders job creation is tenuous at best. Why do I say that? I say that because even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that extending the high income tax cuts for those in the top two rates was the least effective way of creating jobs among a list of alternatives commented on by the Congressional Budget Office. As I recall, the top of the list were items such as payroll tax. If we cut the payroll tax, that is a big job creator. If we extend unemployment insurance benefits, that is a big job creator. Down at the bottom of the list of job creation on a dollar-for-dollar basis is extending the 2 percent top rates. That creates very few jobs, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Actually, it hurts job creation, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Why? It found that extending the high income tax cuts actually reduces the gross domestic product and the number of jobs over 10 years. Why? Because doing so increases the deficit. The CBO said that actually extending the top two rates is a job reducer, not a job creator--a job reducer--because it would add to the deficit and, in doing so, all things being equal, would lose jobs.

So despite efforts to hide behind small businesses, the fundamental question is, What is fair? What is best for our country? Should we drive up deficits further, reducing growth as a result by extending the tax cuts for the top 2 percent? Don't forget, we are already reducing their taxes under the Reid bill. Should we tame our deficits by ending Medicare as we know it and cutting important social programs to the bone? The more those top two rates are extended, the more we have to cut someplace else. It is just mathematics. It is a choice we have to make in our country. There is no free lunch. We know that. We can't have our cake and eat it. Life is choices. Our fiscal situation needs choices. We have to decide what makes the most sense or should we control our deficits through a balanced approach that thoughtfully cuts spending and ask the wealthiest 2 percent to contribute no more than they did 11 years ago? Clearly, as we reduce our debt and try to cut spending, there is no question about that. There is also no question that there has to be some combined income tax increase along with the spending cuts to be able to reduce our budget deficit.

The answer is clear: We should vote for Leader Reid's bill and continue down the path toward responsible deficit reduction. I wish to make the point again, if it wasn't clear. The Reid bill reduces tax rates for all Americans, middle income and upper income, because we have a marginal rate system. The most wealthy have to pay in the 10- percent bracket, then they pay in the 15-percent bracket, then they pay in the 25-percent bracket, then they pay in the 28-percent bracket, all the way up to the top bracket today which is 35 percent. They pay in all brackets. So what we are saying is we are going to reduce your taxes; we are going to make sure you stay at those low rates for the next year so you, therefore, are going to pay less in income taxes, even if one is a billionaire.

Let's go with the Reid bill. It is fair. It is the right course. I hope the Senate adopts it and we get enough votes--60 votes--to get this passed.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I would like to say a few words about the next vote, which is the Cantor amendment.

The Cantor amendment, just to review, would give a 20-percent deduction to all businesses that employ fewer than 500 people. The 20- percent deduction is calculated on U.S. source business income and is limited to 50 percent of the W-2 wages paid. In other words, the business must be paying at least twice the amount of the deduction in wages. In addition, taxpayers cannot get both this deduction and the 90-percent manufacturing deduction; the main point being this Cantor bill is a gross giveaway. It gives businesses a 20-percent deduction for simply earning income. They do not have to do anything, just earn income and get a 20-percent deduction.

The amendment allows businesses to avoid paying taxes on about one- fifth of their profits as long as they employ fewer than 500 people. That is virtually 99 percent of all American companies. Worse still, it provides a temporary reduced tax rate. This would incentivize businesses to defer making investments, hiring new employees or increasing wages in order to increase profits. That is because the larger the profits, the larger the tax deduction under this bill.

Rather than creating jobs or investing in business, the Cantor bill incentivizes the opposite. It incentivizes businesses to sit and wait rather than to invest in people or equipment. It does not make any sense to spend $46 billion for only 1 year of the provision, as proposed in this bill.

This is a giveaway, frankly, to almost all companies--99.6 percent of the companies in the United States--to hedge funds, to partnerships, and private equity firms. Almost all employ fewer than 500 employees. It is absolutely the wrong policy for this Nation to adopt.

I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, Mother Teresa once said, ``Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies.''

Small businesses matter; they are the store fronts in our main streets; they are the idea creators in our technology sector; and they are the employers of our people.

In Montana small businesses matter even more, since small firms make up 97.6 percent of our employers and create almost 70 percent of the private-sector jobs.

We know small businesses are hurting because we see the job numbers. True, unemployment rates are holding steady, but we need to do better.

Monthly job growth hit its highest point in 20 months in January, creating 275,000 new jobs. But job growth slowed substantially to 77,000 in April and 69,000 in May--its lowest point since May of last year--and 80,000 in June.

Similarly, U.S. GDP grew by 3.0 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011 but has slowed to 2.2 percent for the first quarter of 2012.

We need to give businesses the boost they need to take the risk in hiring that additional employee or investing in that additional piece of equipment. The Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act introduced by Senator Reid does just that. It gives businesses a 10-percent tax credit for increased payroll, allows businesses to write-off 100 percent of their business purchases made this year, and expands the ability of businesses to claim an AMT credit in lieu of bonus depreciation.

The hiring credit makes it cheaper for small businesses to employ workers or raise wages. The extension of bonus depreciation would help small businesses that purchase equipment to write off those purchases more quickly. The proposal would also help the businesses that sell the equipment. Bonus depreciation sparks investment, increases cash flows, and creates jobs.

These measures work because they provide incentives. They require companies to do something beneficial in order to obtain the corresponding tax benefit--either to hire American workers or invest in capital in the United States.

The Reid bill is in stark contrast to that offered by Representative Cantor. His small business jobs bill is a mere giveaway. It gives businesses a 20 percent deduction for simply earning income. The Cantor bill allows businesses to avoid paying taxes on one-fifth of their profits as long as they employ fewer than 500 people and pay twice the amount of the deduction in wages. But rather than creating jobs or investing in business, the Cantor bill incentivizes the opposite. Because it provides a temporary reduced rate, the Cantor bill

incentivizes businesses to defer making investments, hiring new employees or increasing wages in 2012 in order to increase profits. That is because, the larger the profits, the larger the tax deduction under the Cantor bill.

That does not make sense for what we need as a Nation. Those businesses that need the boost are those that may be struggling to make a profit right now. Indeed, this could be a risk-taking retailer or technology start-up that may not have any income at all this year. Those businesses would not be helped by Representative Cantor's proposal. Nor does it make sense to spend $46 billion for only 1 year of the provision as proposed by Representative Cantor.

We should be working to create certainty for our small businesses-- reducing tax rates for all businesses without magnifying budget deficits or exacerbating our long-term fiscal challenges.

We should oppose the Cantor bill and support the Reid bill.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to turn to discussing the vital contributions of staff who worked on this bill. We are very fortunate in the Senate to be able to rely on the expertise and the support of so many talented and dedicated staffers whose efforts enabled us to finalize this conference report.

This bill turned out to be unique because it spanned so many different issues. In addition to the ones I have already mentioned, my staff also had to work on pension matters, flood insurance, Federal trust funds, labor, and a range of other issues. All of this combined to make this a very complicated bill with many moving parts.

Accordingly, I want to take this opportunity to publicly and professionally thank the following staffers for guiding this bill through markups in different Senate committees, negotiating with counterparts from the House of Representatives, and getting us over the finish line with a conference report that provides the American people with the good policies included in this bill:

There was Tom Lynch, who worked on both the Environment and Public Works Committee's portion of the bill and the Finance Committee's portion.

Tax Counsel Ryan Abraham, whose work along with Tom Lynch on the highway trust fund was key to being able to fund highways and transit projects under the bill.

Tom, Ryan, and Lily Batchelder, chief tax counsel and head of Finance Committee's tax team, held more than 20 staff meetings with Democrats and Republicans before our Finance Committee markup.

Mark Hybner, who was critical to refining the Indian Reservation Roads Program among other things, a program that is very important to the seven tribes in my State.

Tax and benefits counsel Tom Reeder, a true seasoned professional without whom we couldn't have found the essential offsets to ensure the highway trust fund would remain solvent.

Spencer Gray, who shepherded the secure rural schools and payment in lieu of taxes through this process.

Dave Hughes and Ann Cammack, who made critical contributions both to raise revenue and in tracking policy.

Sean Morrison and Blaise Cote, the Finance Committee's two excellent research assistants.

Heather O'Loughlin, easily one of the most versatile and capable staffers working in the Senate, who was key both to the education and the flood insurance portions.

Amber Cottle, Bruce Hirsch, Gabriel Adler, Hun Quach, Chelsea Thomas, and Rory Murphy, who were very helpful in the effort to develop offsets during the Finance Committee markup.

Department of Transportation detailee and Billings Montana native Avital Barnea, who lent helpful assistance at a crucial time.

Jeffrey Arnold, who was very helpful in assisting on Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation provisions and phased retirement.

Intern extraordinaire Pete Markuson, who logged a lot of meaningful hours.

The outstanding press team of Jenny Donohue, Meaghan Smith, Ryan Carey, Kate Downen, Kathy Weber, and our newest addition, Sean Neary.

And my indispensable leadership staff of Jon Selib, Russ Sullivan, and Paul Wilkins, who as always remained focused and unflappable despite the challenges.

Finally, I also want to use this opportunity to thank Bettina Poirier, David Napoliello, Andrew Dohrmann, and Grant Cope from Chairman Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee staff; Ruth Van

Mark, James O'Keeffe, Murphie Barrett, Kyle Miller, Dmitri Karakitsos, and Alex Renjel from Senator Inhofe's staff; Charles Brittingham with Senator Vitter; Tyler Rushforth with Senator Reid; Ellen Doneski, James Reid, Ian Jefferies, Rich Swayze, Richard Russell, and Bailey Edwards from the Commerce Committee; and Chris Campbell, Mark Prater, Jim Lyons, Nick Wyatt, and Preston Rutledge from the Finance Committee.

Without the individual and collective contributions of each one of these people I have mentioned, we would not have pulled this off. For them and their efforts to help support American jobs, all of us should be very grateful.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment and frustration that the Work Incentives Planning and Assistance program also known as WIPA run by the Social Security Administration is being shut down today. Congress has not acted to extend this important program and the Commissioner of Social Security does not believe he has the authority to continue the program. I disagree. I think he could continue this program under his broad authority to implement the Social Security Act. It is my belief that if he did that and that was contrary to congressional intent, Congress would express that disapproval through the appropriations process.

Let me explain what the WIPA program does. Both the Social Security disability insurance, SSDI, program and the supplemental security income, SSI, program have many provisions to assist beneficiaries in attempting to return to work, but the rules and features of the work incentives are complex and can be intimidating. Through the WIPA program, SSA makes grants to community-based organizations to provide SSDI and SSI disability beneficiaries with assistance in navigating and using the return-to-work features. The total budget for the WIPA grant program is $23 million a year. Because it is such a large State, Montana has two WIPA grantees. The Montana Center for Inclusive Education at Montana State University in Billings is the WIPA specialist for residents of eastern Montana. Over the last 30 months, the WIPA in MSU Billings has served over 100 Montana residents. On the western side of the State, the North Central Independent Living Services, Inc., near Great Falls runs an innovative program where the WIPA grant is dispersed among several Centers for Independent Living in order to provide more personal, one-on-one service for residents of Montana. That program has served over 220 Montana residents.

I think the WIPA program should continue. I know many Members of Congress agree. I hope the Commissioner will continue these important programs as soon as possible. Given the state of the economy today, we should not limit important services that can help our constituents who want to help themselves by attempting to work.

I agree with my good friend, the majority leader, that this farm bill is a reform bill. And I would like to answer your questions about how it addresses--or struggles to address--multi-year price declines.

I worked very closely with Chairwoman Stabenow, through the Senate Agriculture Committee markup this spring, along with my colleagues, Senators Conrad and Hoeven, to ensure the Agricultural Risk Coverage program worked for farmers in the Northern Great Plaines--not just the Midwest.

I commend the Chairwoman for working with me through that markup, and supporting my amendment which improved the farm level coverage option and her commitment for continued work to improve the bill for grain farmers in my home State of Montana.

One of the lingering questions is what happens to the Agricultural Risk Coverage program should we have a few years of consecutive price collapses in the market. I agree that the Agricultural Risk Program should follow market signals, and I commend this bill for doing just that. But when the market fails, there has to be a failsafe to prevent our farm policy from driving off a cliff--taking jobs and food security with it.

So although the bill is a step forward in creating a market-oriented safety net, it does not provide optimal protection for multi-year price declines. I filed an amendment which would have added price protection should we have multi-year price declines while ensuring it does not distort the marketplace.

This is a remaining concern I have with the Agricultural Risk Coverage program and I ask the majority leader and Chairwoman Stabenow for the continued commitment to ensure any agreement which comes out of a conference report with the House addresses this weakness in the Agricultural Risk Coverage program.

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

Mr. President, George Washington once said:

The willingness of future generations to serve in our

military will be directly dependent upon how we have treated

those we have served in the past.

Tomorrow, 95 World War II veterans will fly from Montana to Washington to see their memorial with their own eyes for the first time.

This trip is made possible by the Big Sky Honor Flight Program. Their mission is to recognize American veterans

by flying them to Washington, DC, to see their memorials at no cost.

These veterans, and the volunteers who helped send them here, say a lot about what makes the United States of America the greatest country on Earth.

Who are these veterans? Their average age is 90. They hail from all parts of our State--from Plentywood to Superior, from Miles City to Libby, and many places in between. Each veteran has a story to tell.

Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Bill Smith left his job as an accountant in Billings and volunteered to fly B 24 Liberator bombers with the 466th Bomb Group.

Bill went on to fly 30 missions over Europe from 1943 to 1945. He rose through the ranks and eventually took command of an entire crew.

On a typical day, Bill and his crew would rise at 4 a.m., eat a quick breakfast, and receive a mission brief. As crew commander, Bill was responsible for seeing to it that the bomber safely navigated enemy airspace, accomplished its mission on time and on target, and returned to base safely.

Bill's B 24 flew at 22,000 feet in subzero temperatures in nonpressurized cabins. Think about that. We are not talking about the cozy airplane cabins you and I are used to today. We are talking about open air, very loud and very cold cabins.

Imagine, if one can, doing all that with Nazi fighters on your tail. In one instance, incoming enemy fire shot the oxygen mask right off the face of one of the gunners on Bill's crew.

Bill is 96 now. When asked about his service, he said:

I am proud of what we did. I know we hit a lot of targets.

That's what we were there for. We weren't there for a joy

ride.

In March, I had the privilege of meeting Del Olson from Billings. Del was born and raised on a farm in Rapleje, Montana, which is a very small town.

In 1944, Del joined the Women's Army Corps as an airplane mechanic. The Women's Army Corps was the first female unit, besides nurses, to serve within the ranks of the U.S. Army. They were patriots and trailblazers. Similar to all trailblazers, their service didn't come without controversy.

Del didn't let the controversy get in the way of her mission. She dedicated herself to fixing up bomber aircraft in Texas, which was her job, including the B 24 Liberator that Bill Smith was flying over Europe.

Later in the war, Del moved to Bakersfield, CA, where she worked as a nurse caring for the countless wounded warriors.

Now, at age 92, when you ask Del about her service, she will tell you, ``I didn't do much during the war. Others did so much more.''

Del's humility is a testament to what real selfless service looks like. When Del visits the World War II memorial, she plans to pay her respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifice during the war. Del said she will think of her brothers, of her sister, who all served under General Eisenhower in Europe. She especially wants to honor her first and second husbands, both of whom served in the South Pacific during the war.

I met with Del and talked with her about coming to Washington, DC, on the Honor Flight. She is such a special lady.

When I talked to her, I said: Boy, Del, we have to make sure we raise enough money so you get a seat on the plane.

She said: Oh, no, no, not me. There are others who are so much more deserving than I am. Not me.

That is exactly the kind of selfless attitude she and others who served in World War II have. But she now has a seat. She will be back here in Washington, DC. The first event is tomorrow night, with a service earlier at the memorial tomorrow.

But Honor Flights just don't happen automatically. It takes work--a lot of work. Kathy Shannon, Beth Bouley, Tina Vauthier, Chris Reinhard, Vicky Steven, Yellowstone County commissioner Bill Kennedy, and countless other volunteers have all been instrumental in organizing Montana's first Honor Flight. Students, friends, neighbors, and businesses pooled together more than $150,000 to make this happen. In today's tough times, when families are struggling to make ends meet, pooling together that kind of contribution is no small feat.

This will be the first Honor Flight from Montana, but I know it won't be the last. I know because I have seen the passion and dedication of these volunteers firsthand. In March I had the incredible opportunity to pitch in by serving burgers at a fundraiser in Billings. It was a lot of fun. It was very inspiring seeing all these folks, inspiring to see our young Montanans demonstrating their spirit of service. For example, students from the Huntley Project Schools raised an amazing $2,425 to make this flight happen--just kids. In the process, they learned a valuable lesson about the sacrifices that made it possible for them to grow up strong and free in this country.

This Honor Flight visit is larger than just a thank-you to our World War II veterans. It shows the commitment we Americans consider a sacred obligation to all our veterans--to those who served on the frozen battlefields of Korea, to the jungles of Vietnam, to the deserts of Iraq, and to those who on this very day are fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan. So I ask the Senate to join me in welcoming these heroes to our Nation's Capital this weekend. And a special thanks to all 18,000 World War II veterans living in Montana. We are forever grateful for your service and your sacrifice.

I might add, Mr. President, that as we honor our veterans, especially those who served during World War II, it is a good reminder to all of us here who aspire to public service. In many cases, these veterans put themselves in harm's way, sacrificing themselves for their country, so the very least we can do here in the Senate is to remember our veterans who sacrifice so much, remember our Armed Forces today who serve us so well, and at the very least we should work together as a Senate, as a Congress, to solve the problems ahead of us and not be so partisan and so divisive, which is clearly not a public service.

Citizens United

Mr. President, before I conclude, I also would like to say a few words on another important topic impacting our democracy; that is, the freedom of a people to choose their own elected representatives.

Today, the Supreme Court is considering a challenge to Montana's 1912 Corrupt Practices Act. One hundred years ago, Montanans said, in passing legislation, that elections should not be bought by the Copper Kings. Who were the Copper Kings? They were basically three very wealthy corporate titans trying to control copper production in the State of Montana, and they virtually controlled our State. Montanans said: No, elections should not be bought by copper kings or by any corporation. Today, we in Montana say the same thing.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United cleared the way for unlimited out-of-State corporations throughout the country. I applaud Montana's attorney general Steve Bullock for sticking up for Montanans as the Supreme Court takes a closer look at this case. I have introduced a constitutional amendment to limit corporate campaign expenditures, and I have supported every piece of campaign reform legislation that has come before me.

As the Supreme Court looks at Montana's 1912 Corrupt Practices Act today, it is my hope that Montana can continue to lead the Nation in saying that elections belong in the hands of the people, not out-of- State foreign corporations.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to multiple amendments to the farm bill that would undermine critical support for American sugar producers and the American jobs they create. These amendments would pull the rug out from underneath sugar beet producers in my home State of Montana. It would leave farmers and other sugar industry workers in Montana and across the country vulnerable to job loss. In these tough economic times, this is a step backwards in job creation, and that is a step we can't afford to take.

Montana is the fifth largest sugar beet-producing State in the Nation. In 2010, our cash receipts totaled more than $66 million, and those dollars mean good-paying American jobs. That is why the farm bill continues the vital support that helps America's sugar producers sustain more than 140,000 jobs and nearly $20 billion in economic activity every year.

Our sugar policy is a proven investment in American jobs at no cost to the taxpayer. That is right. Let me repeat that. The U.S. sugar policy doesn't cost American taxpayers a single cent. So why in the world would we want to get rid of this proven job creator at a time when jobs should be our No. 1 priority?

The policy does not restrict access to lower sugar prices for manufacturers, but it allows sugar producers from Montana and the rest of the United States to compete in the world market with access to less quality sugar, cheaper labor, and fewer regulations. Other countries very strongly protect their sugar industry.

Some argue our Sugar Program, while not costing the American taxpayer directly, costs them indirectly at the grocery store. But let me be very clear: For every $1 candy bar bought at a grocery store, only 2 cents of that total cost is sugar. For every $1, only 2 cents of the cost of that candy bar is sugar.

With no cost to the American people and proven benefits extending from rural farmers through the entire economy, this policy works. It is a lifeline to Montana's sugar beet farmers and the rural communities in which they live. I would not let us get rid of a policy that supports proven job creators at a time when we need jobs more than ever.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to give my warm congratulations to my dear friend and fellow Montanan Nancy Keenan. Nancy announced recently that she would step down as President of NARAL Pro-Choice America to return to her home state of Montana for some well-deserved R & R. Nancy has served as president of NARAL for the past 8 years, devoting her time to protecting the rights of women across the country.

Nancy has a storied career that epitomizes the tough female figures of Montana history. Nancy grew up in the blue-collar town of Anaconda, as one of five children in her Irish Catholic family. Her father was a boilermaker for the Anaconda smelter, and her mother worked as a clerk at the Marcus Daly Hotel and later at Thrifty Drug Store.

Upon entering college, Nancy paid her way by taking a job at the smelter, becoming one of the first women laborers at the smelter. This was a tough and dangerous place to work, shoveling ore and handling big buckets of boiling copper. But Nancy took on the challenge with the tenacity that we friends have gotten to know very well. Her hard work paid off. Nancy became the first in her family to graduate from college. She obtained her bachelor's degree in elementary education from Eastern Montana College. Later she received her master's degree in education administration from the University of Montana. Nancy spent 13 years teaching special education in Anaconda.

Nancy speaks fondly of her time growing up in Anaconda, and her desire to enter public service was shaped early in life. Nancy once told the story of the family discussing public service and political happenings while around the dinner table each night. She said, ``I remember my dad often posing problems. When my sisters, brothers, and I would protest, `But it isn't fair.' my dad would simply reply, `Then make it fair.''' Nancy did just that.

Nancy was first elected to the Montana House of Representatives in 1983, and she served 6 years as a state legislator. In 1988, she was elected to statewide office as the Montana Superintendent for Public Instruction, a position she held until 2000.

As a public official, she never shied away from the difficult issues. And Nancy's commitment to women's rights has been steadfast in her career. During Nancy's eight years at the helm of NARAL Pro-Choice, she has worked nonstop to protect women's right to choose.

She is a fighter and one of the hardest workers you will ever know. She embodies the tenacity and savvy forged while working at the Anaconda Copper Smelter to pay for college. Nancy has inspired a new generation of leaders, particularly young women, and her dedication to Montanans throughout her life deserves our thanks and recognition.

I congratulate Nancy as she enters the next chapter of her life and wish her all the best as she returns to Montana.