Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. It is not.

Mr. BAUCUS. It is not.

Mr. BAUCUS. Those two and some others, correct, including the 10- percent bracket.

Mr. BAUCUS. I expect we will.

Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator will yield.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I will say to the body, the world, and also primarily to the Senate and the ranking member of the Budget Committee, of course, these are all issues--that is, those issues raised basically by the ranking member of the Budget Committee--that the Finance Committee is going to work on over the next several years. It is up to us, up to the committee, and up to this body to find the offsets to pay for them. We will do the very best we can. I think we don't want to get into a deficit situation.

Mr. BAUCUS. Some people call it the death tax. We all know what we are talking about. This amendment contemplates extending the estate tax provisions that are in effect in 2009 permanently.

Mr. BAUCUS. Again, under current law I think the exempted amount is $3.5 million.

Mr. BAUCUS. The 2009 extension. The point is that the resolution also contemplates--well, it has an additional $4 billion that can be used for other tax purposes, including changing the provisions of the Federal estate tax.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I might ask the question, Madam President: Basically, what are budgets? Budgets are an expression of priorities. This budget is designed to express what this body thinks, what so many of us think are the proper priorities for this country. Since the resolution has about a $132 billion surplus, we think the strong priority should be to use that to help middle-income Americans. The provisions in this amendment provide for that and clearly help kids get health insurance. A major problem in this country, clearly, is health care. We spend so much on health care. Yet there is some question what we get out of it. This country spends $6,300 per person-- that is per capita--on health care, which is almost twice as much as the next most expensive country. Yet we are not twice as healthy. The problem, clearly, is coverage; that is, not everybody has health insurance. Everybody in America should have health insurance. The other question is cost, but this amendment addresses the coverage side of it; that is, trying to help more people get health insurance, people who do not now have health insurance. Where do we begin? We think we begin with kids. Currently, there are about 6 million children who are covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program. There are about 6 million others who are eligible but not covered. We believe, and this amendment states, that if we begin providing health insurance coverage for more Americans, we should certainly begin with kids. When we begin with kids, let's help those kids who don't have the same financial means that other kids have. A lot of other kids, fortunate for them, their families, father and mother, have a good job and health insurance is part of the job. But we are talking about kids who don't have that. These are kids whose income levels, or their parents' income level, is just above the qualifying rate for Medicaid. Medicaid does provide health insurance for kids, but there are a lot of kids who don't get health insurance because their family's income is just above the Medicaid cutoff. That needs to be covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program, on which this amendment is designed to expand. So I would summarize by saying that I think it is a proper set of priorities, given the resources we have, and I hope every Senator supports this amendment. Madam President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 480

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the pending amendments be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment that I hope will garner unanimous support. The amendment simply puts children first in America's budget. The amendment I am offering today, along with Senator Rockefeller, says reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, otherwise known as SCHIP, is the top health priority of this Congress. I applaud the work of Chairman Conrad and other members of the Budget Committee for reporting out a budget that provides up to $50 billion over 5 years for reauthorization of CHIP. I am hopeful that the Senate will adopt the other amendment that I offered earlier today. That amendment will move $15 billion of that CHIP funding from the reserve fund into the numbers of the resolution. It would make the funding even more likely to happen. The $50 billion level of funding in the budget will ensure that CHIP can meet the demand for services. This funding will ensure that CHIP fulfills its promise of providing health coverage for children who are eligible for CHIP and Medicaid but not enrolled. Congress has a historic opportunity to help millions of children and families this year. We must get this right. As we look at CHIP's track record, we can be very proud of its accomplishments over the past decade. Since 1997, the share of children without health insurance has dropped by one-fifth. Among the poorest children--those with family incomes less than twice the poverty level--one-third fewer children are uninsured today than in 1997. Just as Congress intended, the Children's Health Insurance Program is making inroads to help more children get health coverage. The Children's Health Insurance Program has also helped to decrease racial and ethnic disparities in children's coverage. Today, the poorest African-American children are one-third more likely to have health coverage, and Hispanic children are one-quarter more likely to have health coverage than they were in 1997. The Children's Health Insurance Program has also helped to improve the quality of care children receive by increasing the likelihood children have a ``medical home''--that is, a doctor, clinic, or HMO they routinely visit for care. Research demonstrates that 97 percent of children enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid have a ``medial home.'' That is much better than the 72 percent of uninsured children. We can all agree--CHIP is a great program that has had tremendous benefit for millions of children. But we also know that we can do much better. Today, three-fourths of the 9 million uninsured children in our Nation are eligible for--either Medicaid or CHIP; but they are not enrolled. CHIP reauthorization holds the promise of helping us make a difference in these children's lives. CHIP provides a funding stream to help States provide health coverage to children in need. But that funding stream is often unpredictable and does not always track the demands for coverage in the State. We can do better. But we will not be able to address these problems unless we move forward with reauthorization this year. And we must do so quickly. If Congress does not enact a reauthorization bill before CHIP funding expires on September 30, we will lose the $25 billion in CHIP funds that are now in the Congressional Budget Office baseline. We simply cannot afford to miss this deadline. We cannot tell States that we just could not get it done. We cannot tell millions of children that they will have to lose coverage. Failure is not an option. CHIP is certainly not the only solution to the health care problems facing our Nation. I share the concerns voiced by so many of my colleagues about the need for broader health reforms. But CHIP can be a first step toward this broader goal of health reform. This amendment commits the Senate to move forward to reauthorize CHIP before the deadline, this year. It is a simple statement about the program's importance and of our will to put children first in our work this year. Let me be clear. CHIP is not a Democratic priority or a Republican priority. This program was created in a bipartisan spirit fostered by the late Senator John Chafee and Senator Hatch, working together with Senators Kennedy and Rockefeller. Reauthorization must also be a bipartisan priority. I intend to continue in this spirit and work with my colleague, Senator Grassly, and other members of the Finance Committee to get this done the way it should be this year. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to reinforce our bipartisan commitment to reauthorize CHIP this year. Our children are depending on us. We must not let them down. I strongly urge adoption of this amendment at the appropriate time. In conclusion, we can all agree this is a great program with tremendous benefit for millions of children. We also know we can do much better. Mr. President, we have a list of cosponsors on this amendment which I do not have with me at the moment. We will get that later for the Record. But I strongly urge the adoption, at the appropriate time, of this amendment because we then would be putting children first. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Montana be given 3 minutes at this time. He has been waiting very patiently.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Finance Committee fellows and interns be granted floor privileges during consideration the budget resolution: Neil Ohlenkamp, Suzanne Payne, Jennifer Smith, Leighton Quon, Charles Kovatch, Avi Salzman, Susan Doublas, Diedra Henry-Spires, Howard Tuch, Ton Kornfield, Brett Youngerman, Larry Boyd, Leona Cuttler, Russ Ugone, Sarah Rebecca Smith, Sara Shepherd, Gretchen Hector, and Sarah Butler.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friends and Colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Crapo in introducing legislation to make permanent the tax treatment in Subpart F for active financial services income earned abroad. The legislation that we are introducing today is identical to a bill we introduced in the 109th Congress. Since then, this exemption has been temporarily extended. But that extension will expire at the end of next year. This exemption ensures that the active financial services income earned abroad by American financial services companies, or American manufacturing firms with a financial services operation, is not subject to U.S. tax until that income is brought home to the U.S. parent company. By making this provision permanent, our legislation will put the American financial services industry on an equal footing with its foreign-based competitors. Those competitors do not face current home country taxation on active financial services income. This bill is about jobs in Montana. And it is about jobs in each of our States. One of these competitive American financial services companies employs hundreds of Montanans in Great Falls alone. So the health of that company is critically important to my State. American financial services companies successfully compete in world financial markets. We need to make sure, however, that the U.S. tax rules do not change that situation and make them less competitive in the world arena. This legislation will extend a provision that I believe preserves the international competitiveness of American-based financial services companies, including finance and credit companies, commercial banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. This provision also contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that only truly active businesses benefit. The active financial services provision is critically important in today's global economy. America's financial services industry is a global leader. It plays a pivotal role in maintaining confidence in the international marketplace. This is a fiercely competitive business. And American-based companies would surely be disadvantaged with an additional tax burden if we allow this exemption to lapse. Through our network of trade agreements, we have made tremendous progress in gaining access to new foreign markets for this industry in recent years. Our tax laws should complement, and not undermine, this effort. The temporary nature of the active financial services provision, like other expiring provisions, denies American companies the stability enjoyed by their foreign competitors. It is time to make permanent this subpart F active financial services provision. We need to allow American companies to make business decisions on a long-term basis. I invite my Colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to provide consistent, equitable, and stable tax treatment for the U.S. financial services industry.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friends and Colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Crapo in introducing legislation to make permanent the tax treatment in Subpart F for active financial services income earned abroad. The legislation that we are introducing today is identical to a bill we introduced in the 109th Congress. Since then, this exemption has been temporarily extended. But that extension will expire at the end of next year. This exemption ensures that the active financial services income earned abroad by American financial services companies, or American manufacturing firms with a financial services operation, is not subject to U.S. tax until that income is brought home to the U.S. parent company. By making this provision permanent, our legislation will put the American financial services industry on an equal footing with its foreign-based competitors. Those competitors do not face current home country taxation on active financial services income. This bill is about jobs in Montana. And it is about jobs in each of our States. One of these competitive American financial services companies employs hundreds of Montanans in Great Falls alone. So the health of that company is critically important to my State. American financial services companies successfully compete in world financial markets. We need to make sure, however, that the U.S. tax rules do not change that situation and make them less competitive in the world arena. This legislation will extend a provision that I believe preserves the international competitiveness of American-based financial services companies, including finance and credit companies, commercial banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. This provision also contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that only truly active businesses benefit. The active financial services provision is critically important in today's global economy. America's financial services industry is a global leader. It plays a pivotal role in maintaining confidence in the international marketplace. This is a fiercely competitive business. And American-based companies would surely be disadvantaged with an additional tax burden if we allow this exemption to lapse. Through our network of trade agreements, we have made tremendous progress in gaining access to new foreign markets for this industry in recent years. Our tax laws should complement, and not undermine, this effort. The temporary nature of the active financial services provision, like other expiring provisions, denies American companies the stability enjoyed by their foreign competitors. It is time to make permanent this subpart F active financial services provision. We need to allow American companies to make business decisions on a long-term basis. I invite my Colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to provide consistent, equitable, and stable tax treatment for the U.S. financial services industry.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on Tuesday, February 27, 2007, the Finance Committee held a hearing on energy-tax issues titled: America's Energy Future: Bold Ideas, Practical Solutions. I ask unanimous consent that the following testimony from that hearing be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I agree. The SAFE Port Act demonstrated that the Finance Committee and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, together with the Commerce Committee, could work together to enact strong legislation to secure our borders and protect the trade-based economic security of our country. That legislation is strong precisely because it was the product of the Finance Committee's focus on customs functions and commercial operations, coupled with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's focus on border security and the Commerce Committee's expertise relating to our Nation's seaports.

Mr. BAUCUS. I concur entirely. And those efforts served as the context for the retention of Finance Committee oversight of customs revenue functions and commercial operations in S. Res. 445. The Finance Committee has exercised oversight of those functions for almost 200 years, and we as a nation continue to benefit from that accumulated expertise.

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate the Senator's recollection of our efforts on this issue. I would add that following that hearing and our letter, we worked closely with the Committee on Governmental Affairs to develop text that would keep intact the commercial functions of the Customs Service. Under the final legislation, authorities vested in the Secretary of the Treasury relating to customs revenue functions remained with the Secretary of the Treasury unless delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By order of the Secretary, dated May 15, 2003, Treasury Order 100-16, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security general authority over customs revenue functions, subject to certain exceptions that preserved Treasury's oversight of the Customs Service with respect to policy matters and the authority to issue regulations and determinations. That delegation of authority remains in place to this day.

Mr. BAUCUS. I agree. cargo security on passenger planes

Mr. BAUCUS. I agree entirely. Consequently, I must note for the record that I don't see any need to include the sense of the Senate resolution that has been added to the underlying legislation by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate the Senator's recollection. S. Res. 445 established the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. It also provided that the newly established committee would have referral and oversight of all matters relating to the Department of Homeland Security, with certain exceptions. One of those exceptions was with respect to functional oversight of customs revenue or commercial functions performed by any personnel of the Department of Homeland Security. Does the Senator recall the basis for that exception?

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I note that the underlying legislation contains a sense of the Senate resolution that the Senate should implement the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission to ``create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security.'' This provision was added during committee markup by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. I would ask my colleague, hasn't the Senate already implemented this recommendation?