Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator from Nebraska and I both seek to repeal the provisions in the health care reform act referring to 1099. They are identical in that respect, but actually we go further and give more relief to small business than does the Senator from Nebraska. The Johanns amendment would also give the unelected Director of the Office of Management and Budget the power to slash $33 billion in appropriated spending entirely at his own discretion, taking away the responsibility of the Congress. I do not think that is a good idea. The Johanns amendment, thus, puts at particular risk slower spending accounts that fund vital purposes. The Johanns amendment puts at risk international narcotics control, law enforcement funding, $39 billion worth of funding solely in the discretion of the OMB Director, taking that power away from the Congress. I think that is a bad idea. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Johanns amendment.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to help small businesses across America. The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act repeals recently enacted information reporting rules. Known as ``the 1099 provision,'' these rules would have required businesses to file Form 1099 with the IRS to report payments made to corporations for goods and certain services with the hope that that better information would help the IRS collect more of the taxes that are legally owed, and in turn, keep taxes lower for all taxpayers. Forms 1099 have been used by the IRS for decades to better track income. And in fact, this type of information reporting was proposed by the Bush administration to help better keep track of what businesses spend and earn, which helps better keep track of what they owe in taxes. But it has become clear the new rules went too far. As I traveled my home state of Montana, I listened to small business owners like Darrell Keck, owner of the Dixie Inn in Shelby. Darrell and his wife Jeanne run a tight ship, they are hard-working, and they pay their taxes. This is just one of many mom-and-pop businesses in Montana and throughout the country that told me they do not have the manpower or the software to make the new Form 1099 reporting rules work. I have listened to small businesses, I have heard small businesses, and I am responding to small businesses by offering this bill for full repeal of the new information reporting requirements. The time and expense for small businesses to comply with the new rules far exceed any benefit. Especially in these tough economic times, now is not the time to put additional stress on small businesses to meet complicated government rules. Small business is the backbone of the American economy--especially in Montana where more workers are employed by small businesses than anywhere else in the country. Business owners need to focus their efforts on growing their business and creating jobs--not filing paperwork. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, I remain committed to improving tax administration and enhancing voluntary tax compliance. When each person pays what he owes, our nation's system of voluntary tax compliance is fairer for everyone--without raising taxes on anyone. I look forward to working collaboratively with the small business community to improve the ability of small businesses to understand and meet their tax obligations. Small businesses in Montana and all across America want to comply with the tax laws. But these new rules stretched their ability to do that. I urge my Colleagues to support their full repeal. Mr. President, I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to help small businesses across America. The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act repeals recently enacted information reporting rules. Known as ``the 1099 provision,'' these rules would have required businesses to file Form 1099 with the IRS to report payments made to corporations for goods and certain services with the hope that that better information would help the IRS collect more of the taxes that are legally owed, and in turn, keep taxes lower for all taxpayers. Forms 1099 have been used by the IRS for decades to better track income. And in fact, this type of information reporting was proposed by the Bush administration to help better keep track of what businesses spend and earn, which helps better keep track of what they owe in taxes. But it has become clear the new rules went too far. As I traveled my home state of Montana, I listened to small business owners like Darrell Keck, owner of the Dixie Inn in Shelby. Darrell and his wife Jeanne run a tight ship, they are hard-working, and they pay their taxes. This is just one of many mom-and-pop businesses in Montana and throughout the country that told me they do not have the manpower or the software to make the new Form 1099 reporting rules work. I have listened to small businesses, I have heard small businesses, and I am responding to small businesses by offering this bill for full repeal of the new information reporting requirements. The time and expense for small businesses to comply with the new rules far exceed any benefit. Especially in these tough economic times, now is not the time to put additional stress on small businesses to meet complicated government rules. Small business is the backbone of the American economy--especially in Montana where more workers are employed by small businesses than anywhere else in the country. Business owners need to focus their efforts on growing their business and creating jobs--not filing paperwork. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, I remain committed to improving tax administration and enhancing voluntary tax compliance. When each person pays what he owes, our nation's system of voluntary tax compliance is fairer for everyone--without raising taxes on anyone. I look forward to working collaboratively with the small business community to improve the ability of small businesses to understand and meet their tax obligations. Small businesses in Montana and all across America want to comply with the tax laws. But these new rules stretched their ability to do that. I urge my Colleagues to support their full repeal. Mr. President, I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, women are the backbone of the American family and a driving force of our economy. They are our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. Women are the heart of American families and local communities. October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and this October we have many reasons to reflect and celebrate. Thanks to the concerted efforts of the public and private sectors, we have come a long way to ensuring that women have long, healthy lives. Twenty years ago, Congress created the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Today, the program provides screening services for breast and cervical cancer in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, five U.S. territories, and 12 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes and tribal organizations. Since the program got started, almost 4 million women have been served--giving them access to breast and cervical cancer screenings that they otherwise could not afford. We have recently expanded opportunities for women across the country to be screened by including free preventive care, like mammograms and cervical cancer screenings, in the new health care reform law. The Affordable Care Act eliminates all insurance copays for these screenings, which means more women will have access to early detection and more women's lives will be saved. This October, we are also celebrating the 30th anniversary of the beginnings of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, an organization founded on Susan's sister's promise to end breast cancer forever. Today, Susan G. Komen for the Cure is the largest source of nonprofit funds dedicated to the fight against breast cancer, investing nearly $1.5 billion in grassroots advocacy for quality care and research. These efforts have made a big difference. In the last 30 years, we have improved the rate of cancer screenings--increasing the percentage of women over 40 who receive regular mammograms from less than 30 to nearly 75 percent. We have improved the treatment outcomes for women with cancer--increasing the 5-year survival rate from 74 percent to 98 percent. We have also increased the amount of Federal funding going toward breast cancer research, prevention, and treatment--ensuring that American women benefit from the best that science has to offer. Despite these advances, it is estimated that nearly 40,000 women will die of breast cancer this year. That means that 40,000 American families will lose their mother or grandmother, sister or daughter. We cannot let up in this fight. We made a commitment to improving women's health in health reform--ending insurance industry abuses that have disproportionately affected women for decades, providing preventive benefits tailored to meet women's unique health needs, and ensuring women of all ages have access to comprehensive, high-quality coverage. Improving women's health has a positive effect on the whole family. According to the Department of Labor, women make four out of five health care decisions for their families and are more likely to be the caregivers when family members are ill. Improving women's health also has a positive effect on the economy. A healthy pregnancy, for example, begins with a healthy woman and leads to long, productive lives for mother and child. We have come a long way, but we are not there yet. I am confident that with the consistent efforts of Congress and private sector groups such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, we will continue to make progress for years to come.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize an outstanding education leader from my home State of Montana. Les Meyer, principal of Fairfield High School in Fairfield, MT, has been recognized by the Montana Association of Secondary School Principals as the Montana Principal of the Year for 2010. Les has served in the Fairfield school system for over 13 years, beginning as an English teacher in 1997 and since 2002 as the principal of Fairfield High School. Under his leadership the school has seen test scores and student achievement rise every year, while the dropout rate has fallen to almost zero. Les has expanded professional development opportunities to help his teachers do an even better job of educating our children. He is well liked and admired by the staff and students alike. When Les was recognized as the Montana Principal of the Year, he humbly accepted the award and praised his teachers, staff, students, parents, and community members who have all contributed to the success of the young people in Fairfield schools. He noted how fortunate he is to be working in a community where folks take the education of their children seriously--a trait in communities across Montana both large and small. There is nothing more important to Montanans than giving children the best opportunities to succeed in life. Providing our young people with a solid education is the best thing we can give them. The investments we make in our education system today will provide our children with the skills and knowledge to be successful in the 21st-century economy. Montana has some of the best teachers and principals in the country, and I look forward to working with Les and other education leaders across the State to make sure that we continue to keep the promise of a good education to our children. Les also knows that life's lessons extend beyond the classroom. Since 2004, in addition to being principal, Les has served as the football coach for Fairfield High. Under his leadership, the team has advanced to four Class B State Championship games in the past 5 years. This season the Eagles are off to a 4 to 0 start and are ranked No. 1 in the State. Les works to instill in the young men on his team the importance of teamwork, being role models and good citizens in the community, and giving it their all both on the field and in the classroom. I wish Coach Meyer and the team the best of luck. Les is in Washington, DC, this week along with other award winning principals from across the country who are being recognized for their achievements and are sharing their insights on how to make our education system even better. I congratulate Les on being chosen as the Montana Principal of the Year, and I applaud all our teachers, principals, and school administrators across Big Sky Country and thank them for their dedication to making our schools the best they can be.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. BAUCUS. Sure.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa, the chairman of the HELP Committee, for his excellent service. A weather vane shows when the wind is blowing and in what direction it is blowing and a resolution such as this shows when it is election season. This resolution is a political stunt. It is an election-season effort to take potshots at the new health care reform law. Before the Senate now is a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of 1996. Colleagues will recall that the Congressional Review Act is part of what some folks called the Contract with America. This particular resolution would nullify a regulation that is essential to implementing the new health reform law. The resolution is, thus, a transparent effort to undermine the new law. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution. From the beginning, the new health care reform law has been about ending the worst insurance company abuses. That is why the new law requires insurance companies to end lifetime limits on coverage. That is why the new law prevents insurance companies from canceling coverage when you get sick. That is why the new law requires insurance companies to allow parents to put their children up to age 26 on their insurance policy, and that is why the new law prevents most insurance companies from discriminating against kids with preexisting conditions. These important new protections took effect just last week. From the beginning, the law has been about preserving what is good about American health care. That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan, and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it. Now some on the other side of the aisle have tried to pick apart that promise. They have tried to find some rare example to the contrary. But despite what some folks might say, we stuck to that promise. If you like your health care plan, you can pretty much keep it. Then the question becomes: How can we be sure that what you have is still the same health care plan? What changes can the insurance plan make and still remain the same plan? That is what this new regulation is all about. The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury promulgated this regulation on June 17. The regulation defines what changes an existing health care plan can and cannot make in order to retain what is called the ``grandfathered'' status. The new health care reform law gives grandfathered plans special treatment. This treatment ensures that satisfied consumers can continue to get their current health care plans, and this treatment ensures that dissatisfied consumers can get access to a fairer marketplace. Plans with grandfathered status get more time to incorporate some of the consumer protections guaranteed in the new health care reform law. Grandfathered status is valuable to the health insurance plans. In some cases, it exempts plans from having to make particular changes until the year 2014. Some fundamental consumer protections, however, are so important that all plans have to comply with them right away. Many of those protections are the ones that became effective just last week. The new regulation strikes a careful balance. It protects consumers from some of the insurance companies' most egregious abuses. At the same time, it recognizes the realities of what insurers are able to do. That balance is important to maximizing consumer choice, and that balance is important to minimizing insurance market disruption. The new regulation spells out coverage changes that would cause insurance plans to lose this special grandfathered status. For example, plans cannot significantly reduce benefits and still retain their grandfathered status. It makes perfect sense to require plans to maintain their benefits as a condition of their preferred status. After all, if a plan significantly reduces its benefits, it is not the same plan anymore. If a plan significantly reduces its benefits, the plan is not truly letting you keep what you have. Another example under the new regulation is that plans cannot significantly increase cost sharing and retain their grandfathered status. In other words, plans cannot significantly increase deductibles, copays or coinsurance that are more than nominal. Once again, the new regulation is only fair because plans should not be increasing the financial burden on consumers and still qualify for this special status. If a plan significantly increases the financial burden on consumers, it is not the same plan. If a plan significantly increases the financial burden on consumers, the plan is not letting you keep what you have. A third example under the regulation is that plans cannot add new or more restrictive limits on coverage and remain grandfathered. This, too, makes sense, because imposing or lowering annual limits has the same effect as reducing benefits, and that is not something for which plans should be rewarded. Once again, if a plan adds new or more restrictive annual limits on coverage, it is not the same plan and the plan is not letting you keep what you have. These examples demonstrate how reasonable the new rules for grandfathered status are. Plans basically have to offer the same coverage. They have to offer the same cost sharing and annual limits as they do today. The resolution before us would allow health insurance plans to leave the path to full compliance with new, commonsense consumer protections. The resolution would leave consumers relying on the kindness of the insurance industry, and we have seen how well that works. That is the effect of the resolution before us. The resolution before us would strike down disincentives for plans to cut benefits, increase consumers' out-of-pocket costs, or reduce how much health care a consumer may use in a year. The resolution before us would thus free the health insurance companies to cut benefits, to increase out-of-pocket costs, and to reduce annual limits. The new health care reform law aims to eradicate these abusive practices, and the grandfathering regulation ensures a successful transition to a fully reformed insurance market. The new health reform law puts consumers and their doctors--not insurance companies--in charge of their health care. This resolution would put consumers at risk. It would put consumers at risk of paying more and getting less. This resolution is the exact opposite of health care reform. This resolution is a political stunt. It is about repealing health care reform in an election season. This resolution is an attempt by the other side to dismantle the new health care reform law piece by piece. This time, they are sending a message to their friends in the insurance industry. This resolution invites the insurance companies to continue to put profits before patients. So I ask: What is next? The other side says they want to repeal and replace the new health care law, but we saw what happened before health care reform. Before health care reform, insurance companies could discriminate against kids with a preexisting health condition. Before health care reform, health insurance companies did not have to let adults under 26 stay part of their parents' health insurance plans. Before health care reform, health insurance companies could kick people off their rolls when they were sick and needed coverage the most. That is what the law was before the new health care reform law. Is that what the other side wants to go back to? The bottom line is this resolution would take away consumer protections that the new health care reform law guarantees. I urge my colleagues to reject the proposition that insurance companies know best. They don't know best. I urge my colleagues to maintain the commonsense consumer protections that have just come into effect, and I urge my colleagues to reject this election season resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want colleagues and those who read the Record to know that the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public the document entitled ``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586, Scheduled for Consideration by the House of Representatives on August 10, 2010.'' This document is an explanation of the education jobs and Medicaid funding bill that the Senate passed last month. This explanation reflects the intentions of the Senate and its understanding of the legislative text. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web site at http://www.jct.gov/publications.html? func=startdown&id=3702 and is listed as document number JCX-46-10. In addition, I would like to comment on the Secretary's grant of authority to issue regulations in section 211 of the legislation, which adds new section 909 to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. I note that this grant of authority allows the Secretary to provide exceptions, as appropriate, from the application of the provision to certain foreign tax credit splitting events resulting from foreign consolidation regimes, group relief, or similar loss-sharing arrangements.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--it is on the same subject-- that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4994, taxpayer assistance; that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of the Baucus substitute amendment, the text of Calendar No. 572, S. 3793, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the title amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. This is one provision we need to pass. There are, however, many other provisions we need to pass. They are in the category of tax extenders. Clearly, the State and local sales tax deductions should be passed into law. Senator Murray from the State of Washington has been working hard. Washington, obviously, is a State that needs this deduction. There are many States that need it. Unfortunately, the provision called for by the Senator from Wyoming is not paid for. It is going to add to the deficit. I might add that the other provisions that must get passed which expired at the end of last year, I say with embarrassment, must be passed this year, and State and local sales tax deduction is one of them. What are some of the others? Research and development tax credit, we have not extended that. It expired in the last year, as did the State and local sales tax deduction. It expired in the last year. There are many others that expired in the last year. What is the Senate doing? The answer is nothing because the other side of the aisle would not let us bring up the package of extenders. The Senator from Wyoming picked out one little one. The fact is, we have to get them all passed; otherwise, many people are going to be in a very disadvantageous economic position. I object to the request made by the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4994----

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I seek recognition.

Mr. BAUCUS. What is the parliamentary procedure?

Mr. BAUCUS. I thought we were going back and forth.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I am sorry. I was distracted. Is there a UC request pending before the Senate at this moment?

Mr. BAUCUS. Might I ask, who is propounding the unanimous consent request?

Mr. BAUCUS. I object to the modification.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I ask, through the Chair, that the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BAUCUS. I wanted to ask him--because we have to ask questions around here--isn't it a good idea for us to have more permanence and not pass so many short-term extensions in Congress, just as a general principle?

Mr. BAUCUS. Is the Senator aware, if my calculation is correct, that there are about 130 extenders that we have to extend at the end of every calendar year--approximately 130? Did the Senator know the number is that great?