Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Census: Learning Lessons from 2010, Planning for 2020.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2011, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of Community Banking: Opportunities and Challenges.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2011, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Perspectives on the Crisis in Libya.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. 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 April 6, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. 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 April 6, 2011.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Role of the Accounting Profession in Preventing Another Financial Crisis.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2011, at 9:15 a.m. in Dirksen 406 to hold a hearing entitled, ``State and Local Perspectives on Transportation.''

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that in addition to my being able to speak for 2 minutes and Senator Inhofe 1 minute, that Senator Boxer also be allowed to speak for 1 minute on this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a very commonsense amendment. It basically says: The general rule makes sense, but there should be a couple exceptions. The general rule is that we should have regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, but not for agriculture. I am talking about agricultural producers, not processors, the regulations which would still apply to processors. We are talking about producers, agricultural producers. They should be exempt. Currently, there are not regulations. EPA may or may not pass regulations that affect agricultural producers. I think we should make clear to agriculture they are exempt. They are not the big greenhouse gas polluters. Second, this amendment puts in place and codifies EPA's attempt to deal with small business with its tailoring rule. It may or may not be upheld in the courts. Passage of this amendment would allow this to be upheld in the courts. Essentially, there are 15,000 emitters of greenhouse gas emissions that are the big ones. The other 6 million basically are the very small ones. What about the big ones, the 15,000? Those are large plants run by big corporations. They essentially produce most of the greenhouse gas emissions. Ninety-six percent of these 15,000--the big ones--are already subject to EPA criteria. They have to get permits. Moreover, they emit 70 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions. So I am just saying, for small businesses--there are a lot of them-- it is very important they be exempt from EPA regulations. It is common sense. In general, it is OK, but it exempts agriculture and it exempts small business.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. 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 April 5, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Closing the Digital Divide: Connecting Native Nations and Communities to the 21st Century.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2011, at 12 p.m. in S-216.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2011, at 10:15 a.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland on the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Tourism in America: Removing Barriers and Promoting Growth.''

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, my colleague from New Jersey proposed what I think is a very reasonable amendment to the revenue provision of the repeal of this 1099 provision. I plan to support that. It is a good amendment. One of the key provisions in the Affordable Care Act is the tax credit that will be available to millions of low- and middle-income Americans to purchase health insurance if their employer doesn't make coverage available. That is a credit. It goes to middle- and low-income Americans. The provision that will pay for 1099 repeal will increase the amount that many Americans will have to pay at the end of the year if they receive a credit to purchase their health insurance and their income ends up being higher than the income on which their credit was based. I share Senator Menendez's concern that this will cause an undue burden. This could increase premiums that people pay under health insurance, or reduce the benefits of their health insurance coverage, especially in the small business community, and he believes his amendment would reverse the provision--and it does in fact do that--if the HHS Secretary determines it will increase premiums or if it will reduce coverage, that is on health insurance coverage for small businesses. The 1099 repeal is all about small businesses. That is primarily why we are going to repeal 1099. We don't want to turn around and hurt small businesses in the same bill. There is a real possibility that that would happen with a straight repeal, without the Menendez perfecting amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Menendez amendment. In effect, that amendment would repeal 1099, which virtually every Member of the body wants to do, but also will make sure the consequences do not hurt small businesses, which will otherwise find their premiums increased or their coverage diminished. Senator Menendez very wisely anticipates that potential problem with his amendment by essentially providing that the increase would not occur as a premium--that is, the 1099 repeal would not occur if the HHS Secretary determines that it will increase premiums or also reduce coverage for small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I first wish to correct the record. I stated earlier that if the Menendez provision is triggered, the 1099 repeal will not go into effect. That is not correct. What I meant to say is if the Menendez provision is triggered, then the new true-up rules in H.R. 4 will not go into effect. That is an important distinction. No matter what the result, 1099 will, in fact, be repealed. That is the main point. I commend all Senators, including Senator Johanns and others, who want to repeal 1099. It is very much the view of this body--I, myself, want to repeal 1099, but I also think the provision offered by Senator Menendez is an improvement on repeal, even though repeal will actually go into effect. I will also say that there are a lot of statistics bandied about regarding health care reform. The Fidelity company does an analysis of how much it costs people age 65 and older to pay for their health care. That is their premium cost as well as their insurance costs or out-of- pocket costs. Fidelity company has just concluded in the last week or so that as a consequence of health care reform, the number of dollars that seniors will have to pay for health care will actually be lower-- not higher, but lower--than what it otherwise would be on account of passage of that bill. Budget Proposal I want to say a couple words about the budget proposal offered by the House, the Ryan budget proposal. It is important for people to know what is in that budget. What is in it basically? Let me tell you. That budget cuts $2.2 trillion in health care costs over 10 years--$2.2 trillion in cuts in health care costs over 2 years. It repeals health care reform. That is what the Ryan resolution does. His budget resolution repeals health care reform. What else does it do? It dismantles Medicare. It dismantles Medicare as we know it. Health care reform extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by another 12 years. The Ryan House Republican budget proposal repeals Medicare as we know it. It turns into a voucher program. Basically, it says this: There have been reports that it costs about $15,000 to pay for seniors under Medicare for 1 year. There are reports that the Ryan proposal says we are just going to give people $6,000 and give it to a health insurance company. First, that is a big cut, 15 down to 6 and, second, it is to a health insurance company. So the net effect of the Ryan proposal is very simple. It transfers wealth from seniors, from children--because of Medicaid and people in nursing homes--it transfers wealth from them to whom? Health insurance companies. The Medicare proposal is a transfer of wealth from seniors to health insurance companies. Health care reform did the opposite. We extended the life of Medicare. How did we do it? In part, by cutting health insurance payments. So we helped seniors in health care reform and we cut health insurance companies. The Ryan House Republican budget proposal does the opposite; it cuts benefits to seniors by a whopping amount and it takes that wealth and transfers it over to health insurance companies that will get higher premiums, higher bonus payments, their stock returns will go up, and their administrative expenses will go up. I don't think that is what we want to do. But make no mistake, that is the effect of the Ryan proposal. Also, I might say, it reduces income taxes by about $1.2 trillion. So the real net of the effect of the Ryan proposal is, take money away from people and give it to the health insurance companies and the wealthy. That is what the Ryan proposal does. That is exactly what it does. The Ryan proposal takes money, about $5.8 trillion roughly, over 10 years--takes it away from people, especially seniors and kids on Medicaid, elderly who happen to be on Medicaid--there are big reductions further in discretionary spending--and lowers income taxes by about $1.2 trillion. It lowers them. That is how it achieves budget savings of $5.8 trillion. He cuts, cuts to the bone, and then cuts about $1.2 trillion more than he has to because $1.2 trillion is reductions in income tax. I want the public to know what is in the Ryan budget. That is what it is. Let me say it one more time, clearly, simply. It is a transfer of money away from seniors and from kids on Medicaid and elderly on Medicaid over to health insurance companies--higher bonuses, higher salaries, stock goes up, and in addition it transfers money away from people to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy--not tax cuts for the unwealthy but tax cuts for the wealthy. How did he do that? He lowers the top rate to 25 percent so the wealthy pay less taxes. He lowers the corporate down to 25 percent, so the bigger companies pay less taxes. That is how he does it. While we are talking about a short-term CR around here, and we are talking about a longer term CR around here, when we start talking about budgets, let's look closely at what is actually in that Ryan proposal. Of course, we have to lower our budget deficits. Of course, we have to significantly lower our budget deficits. But, of course, we have to do it fairly, so all Americans are part of the solution, so health insurance companies are also part of the solution, so the most wealthy are also part of the solution. All Americans have to be part of the solution. The Ryan budget does not do that. It says only the seniors-- we get the budget deficit reduction on the backs of seniors, on the backs of people who otherwise receive medical care under Medicaid and some other things, but also we shift income to the most wealthy by lowering their taxes. I hope when we are voting on the Menendez amendment, which is important to do, also in the background we understand what is going on in the other body. They may bring this up and try to pass it this week. They may try to pass it on the floor next week--I don't know. But we should recognize it for what it is and come up with a deficit reduction proposal that is fair, fair to all Americans, not on the backs of the seniors for the benefit of health insurance and not on the backs of average Americans for the benefit of the most wealthy, by lowering their income taxes by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. That is not fair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

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