Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thought I had voted on the last vote but apparently it was not registered. Had it been registered, I would have voted aye. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, John Adams, America's first Vice President--and second President--and whose bust sits right above us looking over the Senate every day, once said: Facts are stubborn things. And whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. It has been more than 3 years since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. In that time, its opponents have made every effort to misinform the American public about this law and the vital benefits it provides the American people. But as Adams said, facts are stubborn things, and I want to make sure the facts about the Affordable Care Act do not get lost amongst the criticism and false claims. So here are the facts. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 100 million people have received free preventive care, more than 7 million seniors have saved nearly $9 billion on prescription drugs, and 25 million people who lacked health insurance will finally be able to get the coverage they need. The Affordable Care Act has also helped slow the growth in health care costs. National health care spending grew by 3.9 percent each year from 2009 to 2011--the slowest rate on record. I can remember not too many years earlier the annual rate increase in health care costs was in the neighborhood of 6, 7, 8, 9 percent a year. It is a dramatic reduction. That means we will save huge sums of money down the line. For example, the CMS projection of national health care expenditures in 2019 has dropped by $574 billion in 3 years. That is $574 billion in reduced projection of national health care costs in the year 2019. While there is more than just the Affordable Care Act at work in those savings, it certainly has played a part. The health insurance marketplaces are open for business, and every day we hear how the Web site healthcare.gov is working better. It is picking up steam. It is handling more and more consumers. The New York Times reported on Tuesday that--and I am quoting--``the number of applicants who dropped a plan into their virtual grocery carts was climbing at a rapid clip.'' Those are the facts. The Affordable Care Act is helping millions of people. It is improving millions of lives. But frankly, I think the American people are a bit tired of hearing politicians argue over the law. I am sure every one of my colleagues has spoken at length about it here on the Senate floor or back home. I know I have. I think it is time to change the conversation. I think it is time to hear from the American people--hear from them--about how they think the law is helping them. I think it is time to hear what the New York Times called the ``voices of quiet optimism and relief amid the uproar over the health law.'' Take these two stories. Claire He is a college student whose parents have never been able to afford insurance. She and her brother lived most of their lives without coverage. She told the New York Times that if they got the flu ``we just stayed home and waited it out.'' But when Claire and her family sat down to look at their options under the Affordable Care Act, here is what they found: They found a high-quality plan that will cost them only $30 a month. Claire said of the ACA's critics: ``I see so much negativity behind this. . . . But in reality there's a lot of families who are like mine.'' Then there is the story of Bruce Kleinschmidt, a lawyer who lives in Louisville, KY. Bruce had insurance through his employer until he stopped working full time. Bruce is 61--not yet eligible for Medicare. In another era, his health problems would have made it impossible for him to find insurance. But using Kentucky's new health marketplace, Bruce found a generous plan that saves him $300 a month in premiums. Bruce called it a ``godsend.'' There are hundreds of similar stories in newspapers all across the Nation--the San Jose Mercury News, the Las Vegas Sun, the Hartford Courant, the Palm Beach Post, the LA Times, and many more. Not only do we read these kinds of personal stories in newspapers, we receive letters with them every day. Here are a few examples from letters I have received from Montanans. John wrote to my office with his family's story. What did he say? John's daughter recently beat cancer. She is under age 26, so thanks to the Affordable Care Act she is still covered under her parents' insurance. And there is more. When she does turn 26, she will have a guaranteed right to coverage. No insurance company can turn her away because she had cancer. John said they are counting on the Affordable Care Act to help them find an affordable plan. Marge wrote to say that the Affordable Care Act has been an enormous relief for her. She has battled emphysema for years--despite the fact that she is not a smoker. A doctor once told her she could never leave her job because no one else would ever insure her. So for Marge, the Affordable Care Act means she can breathe again-- that she does not have to live in fear of losing her insurance or falling into bankruptcy because of her medical costs. We all know--because many, many told us before the act--how many people went into bankruptcy because one of the leading causes of bankruptcy was health care costs. Jillian wrote to say how excited she was to be able to shop for coverage in the marketplace. Jillian is married, and she and her husband are expecting a child. But her husband's employer-sponsored plan does not pay for her coverage. Here is what she wrote: ``I am looking to make a more affordable choice for me and my baby-to-be. . . . '' Letters like these come in every day. They tell the stories of how the Affordable Care Act is working for them, it is helping them, and in the end that is what matters--not the punditry, not the polls, not the political points. What matters is that the law is improving the lives of millions of Americans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Employee Benefit Research Institute on their 35th anniversary. EBRI was founded in 1978 with the purpose of conducting research on employee benefit plans and distributing that information to the public. Their mission ``is to contribute to, to encourage, and to enhance the development of sound employee benefit programs and sound public policy through objective research and education.'' EBRI has fulfilled its mission and purpose for 35 years in a nonpartisan and unbiased manner. That is why EBRI's research staff is frequently asked to testify before Congress, including several times before the Finance Committee. EBRI produces trustworthy analysis on both health and retirement issues. EBRI does not take policy positions and they do not lobby--they provide us with just the facts without spin. When it comes to retirement and health policy, EBRI is an indispensable source of expert data. And that is why both Members and our staff on Capitol Hill depend on their expertise and reliability. I salute EBRI and its staff for 35 years of exceptional work and look forward to their continued help in the future.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think it is pretty clear that this motion is inappropriate. This is not what we should be doing and how we should potentially change the act. Actually, the effect here is to disrupt implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act is a law. It has been in place for several years. The Supreme Court has upheld it. Attempts to repeal it failed. I think the House has voted up to 20 times to try to repeal the ACA. They have all failed. The act is here. So the goal here is to make it work, make the act work. Then later on we can ask questions about what happened, why it didn't work, why wasn't implementation of the exchanges as good as a lot of us would have liked it to have been. Then find out who is responsible, et cetera. Right now it works. The effect of this motion is severalfold. One, it will deny people having health insurance, people who otherwise would get health insurance. If you delay the individual responsibility requirement, it is going to cause a delay. People will not have insurance. Second, it is going to increase the cost of health insurance for a lot of people. Why? Because fewer people will be signed up. The individual responsibility requirement will not be followed as much as otherwise would be the case. The result is fewer people will be in the insurance pool, and therefore prices will be higher. Another consequence is it lowers the quality of health insurance, especially for those individuals who are seeking to be insured. They are going to have a lower quality product as a consequence of this request. It is an attempt to destabilize, it is an attempt to undermine the ACA. I think for those reasons it is inappropriate and again is another effort to obstruct. We should not proceed in this way, so I object.

Mr. BAUCUS. The famed author George Bernard Shaw once wrote: The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. A few weeks ago, lost among the headlines about shutdowns and showdowns was another very important news story. This story didn't receive big headlines. It didn't make the evening news, and it wasn't trending on Twitter. Yet the story in the October 8 edition of the New York Times has serious implications for the future of our economy and our ability to adapt to the modern world. The eye-opening article discussed the merger of a California-based chip maker called Applied Materials. Applied Materials merged with a Japanese company called Tokyo Electron. Applied Materials is one of the biggest companies in Silicon Valley, an industry leader with a global presence. They have more than 13,000 employees across 18 countries. Their headquarters, where they got their start 46 years ago, is in Santa Clara, CA. In addition to 8,000 workers in the Bay Area of California, Applied Materials has employees at research, development, and manufacturing facilities in Texas, Utah, Massachusetts, and in my home State of Montana. Now, with the merger with Tokyo Electron, what is this all-American company doing? It is shifting its corporation, not to Japan, but to the Netherlands. That is right. This new American-Japanese company will be incorporated in Holland. Why are they moving to the Netherlands? What is going on. In the New York Times article on the merger, reporter David Gelles wrote: Executives at Applied Materials highlighted a number of advantages in announcing a merger recently with a smaller Japanese rival, but an important one was barely mentioned: lower taxes. The merged company will save millions of dollars a year by moving--not to one side of the Pacific or the other, but by reincorporating in the Netherlands. The article goes on to note that Applied Materials' effective tax rate will drop from 22 percent to 17 percent as a result of the merger. For a company that had nearly $2 billion in profit in 2011, that amounts to savings of about $100 million per year. Mergers resulting in U.S. companies being owned by companies in tax haven jurisdictions such as Ireland, Bermuda, or the Cayman Islands, are a new spin on the old ``inversion'' problem, and it is becoming an increasingly popular practice. The Times article highlighted the following additional examples. Last year, the Eaton Corporation, a power management company from Ohio, acquired Cooper Industries from Ireland for $13 billion and then reincorporated in Ireland. The company expects to save $160 million a year as a result of the move. In July, Omnicom, the large New York advertising group, agreed to merge with Publicis Groupe, its French rival, in a $35 billion deal. The new company will be based in the Netherlands, resulting in savings of about $80 million a year. Also in July, Perrigo, a pharmaceutical company from Michigan, said it would acquire Elan, an Irish drug company, for $6.7 billion. Perrigo will also reincorporate in Ireland, lowering its effective tax credit from 30 percent to 17 percent, and saving the company an estimated $150 million a year, much of it in taxes. Earlier in the year, Actavis, based in New Jersey, bought Warner Chilcott, a drug maker with headquarters in Dublin, and said it would reincorporate in Ireland, leading to an estimated $150 million in savings over 2 years. It would be easy for us to attack these companies by calling them immoral and unpatriotic, but it is much more constructive to step back and ask: What's motivating these companies? Why are they moving their headquarters abroad? How can we keep them in the United States? How can we adapt to the world and fix the problem? It is a very simple issue. Globalization has made America's Tax Code system out of date. The United States is stuck with a 35 percent corporate tax rate--one of the highest in the world--and a maze of incentives that only an army of tax lawyers can navigate. Some of these tax incentives are extremely costly but are much less valuable to businesses than a rate reduction with the same price tag. When U.S. companies look abroad, what do they see? They see other countries with more modern, more efficient, and more competitive tax codes. Then, what do they do? They reincorporate overseas by acquiring or merging with another business. They are not necessarily breaking laws. In fact, many of these companies are following the rules that America's outdated, overly complicated Tax Code provides. The United States is losing hundreds of millions in revenue as a result. Even worse, it is losing jobs. When headquarters moves abroad, good-paying jobs often go abroad too. We need to reverse that tide. We need to bring our tax system into the 21st century to make the United States more competitive. That is what tax reform can do. It can help America overcome the competitiveness crisis that is driving businesses and jobs overseas. This competitiveness crisis was made very clear in a Harvard Business School study last year with the sobering title: ``Prosperity at Risk.'' This indepth report examined the risks that threaten to undermine U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace. It also looked at what action we could take in the United States to restore our country's economic vitality. Harvard Business School surveyed 10,000 of its graduates who live and conduct business worldwide. They asked about the challenges of doing business in America. These individuals are leaders on the front lines of the global economy. They are CEOs, CFOs, business owners, and presidents. They are personally involved in decisions about whether to hire, where to locate, and which markets to serve. Unfortunately, these business leaders are pessimistic about America's economic future. They think America's prosperity--our success, our growth, and our economic status--is at serious risk. The vast majority of those surveyed, 71 percent, expected U.S. competitiveness to deteriorate over the next several years. A survey found that the U.S. fared poorly when competing to attract business and pointed to increased competition from emerging markets. According to the survey: ``For the first time in decades, the business environment in the United States is in danger of falling behind the rest of the world.'' What did they identify as the root of America's competitiveness problem? Respondents--remember, these are 10,000 Harvard Business School graduates working all around the world and in the United States--pointed to America's Tax Code as the root of the problem. Specifically, they pointed to the complexity of the code as one of the greatest current or emerging weaknesses in the U.S. business environment. The Harvard study made clear that our Tax Code puts American businesses at a competitive disadvantage on the world market. That obviously concerns us. Where do we go from here? I believe we have to reform our Tax Code. We have to adapt. We have to help make America more competitive. It is very clear. It is very simple. We have to give companies such as Applied Materials a reason to keep their headquarters in the United States. We have been through a difficult and counterproductive period on Capitol Hill. The recent shutdown and the threat of default undermined confidence in the U.S. and did $24 billion in unnecessary damage to our economy. According to a report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the shutdown cost 120,000 jobs in October alone. I spent last week home in my State, as others were in their States. I was meeting with my bosses, the folks and citizens of Montana. They are not too happy with the antics going on in Washington, DC--and rightly so. Fortunately, that battle is behind us and the government is back to work. It is time for us to come together to tackle the challenges facing our country. Right now there are more than 11 million unemployed Americans looking for work. Our economy is expected to continue growing at a sluggish rate for the next year, less than 3 percent. We have to ask: How do we create jobs? How can we spark faster growth in our economy? How can we boost our competitiveness and keep American companies at home in America? Tax reform must be part of the solution. It is not the whole solution, but it is part of the solution. That was the clear message I heard traveling around the country this summer with my friend Dave Camp. Dave is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Dave and I met with families and businesses, large and small, to hear about their experiences in dealing with the Tax Code. We visited a family-owned bakery in Minneapolis, a small appliance store in New Jersey, a tech start-up in Silicon Valley, and a farm in Tennessee. We visited some large companies as well, companies such as 3M, Intel, FedEx, who employ thousands of people in the United States and around the world. At every stop Dave and I heard the same message. U.S. companies and workers, companies large and small, workers employed at large and small companies, want a more simple, more fair Tax Code that closes loopholes and helps them compete and strengthens our economy. This issue is not going away. It is too important. With so many people out of work, with economic growth still too slow, with a competitiveness gap costing us jobs and revenue, it is time for us to act. It is time for us to reform our Tax Code. The chairman of the House and Senate Budget Committees brought their conferees together for the first time today. They have come together to try to find common ground on a budget and a plan to rebuild confidence in our economy. Patty Murray and Paul Ryan are incredibly smart and hard-working people. They care. And I am confident they can craft a compromise to help get America back on track. I look forward to working with Chairman Murray and Chairman Ryan in the tax entitlement components of their discussions, but at the same time I will continue to work on a parallel track with the Finance Committee advancing tax reform. We are working hard--in Bernard Shaw's words--to adapt to the world and build a tax code that works. And Dave Camp is doing the same thing in the House. We are going down separate paths but coming together with a common goal--reducing the deficit, creating jobs, and promoting economic growth. We are coming together to put America back on track. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on both sides be yielded back.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for such time as I may consume.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: Our capacity is limited only by our ability to work together. What is needed is the will. I have just returned from a week at home in Montana traveling from Fort Benton to Billings to Bozeman. I visited with constituents from all across our State. At each one of my meetings, the conversation would touch on the first snow of the season or football and the Bobcats or the Grizzlies. Those are, in this case, football teams. But inevitably every conversation turned to the challenges we face in Washington and the standoff we just had over the country's borrowing limit and funding the government. People have lost faith in our ability to serve them. They are worried about what the dysfunction means for the future of our country. For more than 2 weeks, Congress was stuck in a stalemate, unable to agree on a course for our Nation. The political standoff shook America's confidence and threatened the global economy. Thankfully, compromise was able to overcome conflict. Cooler heads finally prevailed. But our Nation didn't emerge from the fight unscathed. The 16-day government shutdown took a $24 billion bite out of the U.S. economy, according to Standard & Poor's. The rating agency now projects the U.S. economy will only grow at 2.4 percent in the fourth quarter as opposed to the already slow 3 percent predicted prior to the shutdown. That is a staggering self-inflicted wound, and defaulting would have been even worse. Thankfully, that didn't happen. Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell were able to find the will and come together to provide a path that averted default. Their bipartisan legislation, passed on October 16, pulled us back from the brink. It created a conference committee to negotiate a budget compromise and it gave the President the power to suspend the debt limit until early February. It also gave Senators an opportunity to object and overturn the suspension using what is called a resolution of disapproval. That is what we are considering today. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. For the good of our economy, it cannot pass. Passing this resolution would plunge this Nation back into the same economic crisis we were facing just a few weeks ago. With economic confidence still suffering from the shutdown, another debt ceiling crisis could drive the Nation--and the world--back into recession. We cannot let that happen. It is time to be responsible leaders. Congress needs to stop governing from one self- created crisis to another. Tomorrow, the budget conference committee will begin discussions on a plan to resolve the fiscal challenges before us. The conference will be led by Chairman Murray and Chairman Ryan. They are smart, hardworking and solutions oriented and I am confident they can craft a compromise. I began my remarks with a quote from President Roosevelt and I will close with another. Roosevelt once said: The great test for us in our time is whether all the groups of our people are willing to work together for continuing progress. Today, we face our test. Can we work together for continuing progress? I strongly urge Members of the Senate to reject the resolution before us. It is a step backward, a return to shutdowns and showdowns. Enough is enough. Instead, we must find the will to work together for progress, for the good of our economy and the good of our country. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, would the Senator repeat his request.

Mr. BAUCUS. I certainly will not object to that.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to underline the gravity of the financial condition our country is headed to at this point. I think in the back-and-forth we tend to overlook just how serious this matter is. Here in the Capitol we walk in the footprints of our forefathers. Walking through these halls, their presence is felt at every turn. Just outside this Chamber are the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and dozens of statesmen cast in bronze and marble. At the end of this month a new leader will be added to the halls of Congress--Winston Churchill. A bust of the late Prime Minister will be added to the Capitol collection in the National Statutory Hall later this month. Churchill once said, ``The price of greatness is responsibility.'' We here in Congress have a great responsibility--a responsibility to conduct the business of this Nation, to represent and do what is right for our people and help the people we represent. That is our responsibility here. However, the inaction of a small group of Members in the House has crippled Congress and is now threatening to impede the ability of the United States to fulfill one of its greatest responsibilities--to pay the government's bills. It is completely irresponsible to threaten to default on the Nation's debt. Since 1789 this country has always honored its obligations. Even when the White House and Capitol were burned to the ground right here in 1814, America still honored its debts. America is the greatest country on Earth. We are the leaders of the free world. Nations look to us as examples in democracy. We are supposed to be ``the shining city upon a hill,'' but unfortunately the shine risks being tarnished by a debt default. I agree with many of my colleagues that more could be done to reduce the deficit and promote economic growth, but, as the President said, we cannot negotiate under the threat of default of the Nation's debt. It reminds me of what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said: Never fear to negotiate, but do not negotiate out of fear. Failing to raise the debt limit and shutting down the government are two fearful actions that should not be on the table as we attempt to negotiate other matters in our Nation's fiscal policy. The path is clear. We need to open the government and raise the Nation's borrowing limit. Take away those two guns to our head as a country. Then and only then can we responsibly address the Nation's long-term budget challenges. Right now we need to come together to ensure that we do not permit another self-inflicted wound to our Nation's economy, and that is what defaulting of the debt is--a self-inflicted wound with global consequences. When is the X date? When is the date on which the U.S. Government can no longer pay its bills? We don't know exactly. It is uncertain, and that is part of the problem. Uncertainty creates unpredictability. Nobody knows for sure. The Treasury Secretary says it is October 17. That is as good a date as any. At that time we will have exhausted all ``extraordinary measures'' to stay under the debt limit. I reminded my colleagues that we have been over the debt limit since I think it is May. But we have been taking extraordinary measures; that is, not fulfilling other obligations; that is, not making the government contribution to, say, the government retirement system, for example--we are not doing that anymore. That is an extraordinary measure. We are not making that contribution so we can make other payments such as Medicare payments and other payments the government is obligated to make. After October 17, after all extraordinary measures are exhausted, we would risk defaulting on payments. This is dangerous territory. As of next Thursday it is expected the Treasury Department will have only about $30 billion cash on hand, barely enough to support the government for 1 or 2 weeks. After that the government's wallet is empty. We are in uncharted waters. Again, this country has never in its history defaulted on the national debt. If the debt ceiling is reached, government would immediately have to slash its spending by 20 or 30 percent, driving the Nation back into recession. Make no mistake about it. Social Security payments and Medicare would have to be slashed, veterans' benefits hit, farm payments, farm funding, Department of Defense, payments to the disabled--every program this government runs will be devastated by cuts. The default would also have global consequences, not just here in America but worldwide. Christine Lagarde, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, warned that a failure of the United States to raise the debt ceiling could damage the entire global economy. She is right. Look at how precarious the European economy is right now, and the great effort the European countries have been undertaking to try to stabilize the southern countries in Europe, along with the creditors of the northern nations of Europe. She said it is ``mission critical'' that the debt limit be resolved as soon as possible. Mission critical, says Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF. We are the most important economy in the world. We are the reserve currency for the world. Our Treasury bonds are the very foundation of the global financial system. Default would put the global economy in chaos. The New York Times has an article today entitled ``Default Threat Generates Fear Around the Globe.'' Five years after the financial crisis in the United States helped spread a deep global recession-- Don't forget, Lehman Brothers collapsed 5 years ago in December. --policy makers around the world again fear collateral damage, this time with their nations becoming victims not of Wall Street's excesses but of a political system in Washington that to many foreign eyes no longer seems to be able to function efficiently. We have read the article. We know it is true. The plug has been pulled on negotiations between the United States and Europe on their trade agreements. Why? Because of the government shutdown, not so much the debt limit but the shutdown. We also read articles, I am sure it is true, that President Obama had to cancel his trip to Southeast Asia because he had to stay here and try to work out this crisis. The United States is losing influence in Southeast Asia because he is not there. Who is there? President Xi, the President of China. President Xi is there, explaining to the Southeast Asian countries that China is their friend and he is making loans, an international development bank sponsored by China, tens and twenties of billions of dollars--not by the United States but China. Those countries are trying to escape the gravitational pull of mainland China. President Xi's presence there helps increase their gravitational pull. The President of the United States is not there, not there to show to those other Southeast Asian countries that we care. He is not there because we are not doing our work. That is why he is not there. His absence creates another almost deeper concern among countries, let's say in Southeast Asia. Where is the United States going to be militarily if there is some military difficulty in Southeast Asia? Where is the United States going to be? Can the United States be counted on? Can the United States be trusted? It seems as though there is a question there because the President is not in Southeast Asia and the other question is there because there is a question whether the United States is going to pay its debts, going to pay its bills. I think we eventually will, as the Senator from Arizona Senator McCain said. I think most Members of this body think we eventually will. But let's get there now, not later. There is a real danger here, a big danger here. The danger is we are going to get close to the cliff and get so close to it that we will go over it. We know the cliff is out there. The cliff is default. We know it is not too far away. We know we do not want to go over the cliff. We do not know exactly where that cliff is. We don't know. It may be closer than we think. We do not know what payments we have to make, when they are due. We do not know what the revenue is going to be. That is why the X date is so uncertain. In addition to that, something might happen that triggers a catastrophic economic global response. I don't want to overstate this point, but back in 1914, the Archduke of Austria was assassinated-- Serbia. That spark started World War I, that spark caused it.

Mr. BAUCUS. Very briefly, in addition, there have been other instances when pressure was being built up, people did not heed warnings, they let fate tempt them, and the result was collapse. There have been financial bubbles. The tulip bubble, for example. Lehman Brothers is another example. We knew with the mortgages being written that a bubble was building in that market, but we let it. We would say, oh, nothing is going to happen, but it eventually did. I plead with my colleagues here. Remember, we cannot control fate. We can't control it. We can do our best. We all know that we are going to raise the debt ceiling, we all know we are going to open the government, so let's do it early rather than late. I know it was exceeding my time a little bit, but I think it is important to remind ourselves. I know we are the greatest country in the world. The leader asked me to refer to a book I mentioned a couple of hours ago in the Democratic luncheon by Paul Kennedy, a Princeton historian. He pointed out in the sweep of history, civilizations and countries rise and fall. There is no guarantee that any country or civilization continues forever--Greeks, Romans, Persians, Genghis Khan, the United Kingdom--they rise and they fall. We are No. 1 right now. How long can we continue to be No. 1? He also pointed out, Paul Kennedy, in the sweep of history, countries are defeated not by external armies but by internal decay. So I am saying let's not decay here. Let's resolve this as adults and let's be responsible in the spirit of Winston Churchill. I apologize to my good friend from Maine for speaking on her time.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. For this hour of majority time, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators have 20 minutes each: Senator Baucus, Senator Franken, and Senator Leahy.

Mr. BAUCUS. On September 26, 1987, 26 years ago this very day, President Reagan faced a Congress playing politics with the Nation's debt ceiling. Knowing the catastrophic consequences a default would have on America's economy, President Reagan addressed the Nation. Speaking from the Oval Office he said: Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. He warned: This brinksmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. That was a pretty stern warning. While spoken more than a quarter of a century ago, President Reagan's words, sadly, still ring true today. I hope my colleagues listen to those words of reason. I hope my colleagues in the House of Representatives heed the warning from President Reagan about using the debt ceiling for brinkmanship. As we know, the Federal Government hits its debt limit on May 19. For the past 130 days, the Treasury Secretary has been using what are known as extraordinary measures to continue funding the government. We are running, therefore, on borrowed time. But those extraordinary measures will be used up by October 17. At that point we will have exhausted every measure. Default--that is the United States not paying its debts--will occur unless Congress acts to raise the debt limit. There will be much debate in the coming days on how to deal with the debt limit. The House continuing resolution which we have before us today contains a proposal that some claim would avoid the default. What is it? What do they claim, what is the provision? It is a dangerous plan that gives the Treasury Secretary the unprecedented power to prioritize payments; that is, the Treasury Secretary decides what obligations should be paid and not paid; that is, once the debt limit is surpassed--in short, the power to pick and choose which bills to pay. The House CR does, however, identify two specific payments as priorities they have to pay first. What are they? Social Security and interest to holders of U.S. bonds. They are all first in line. Everyone else has to fight among themselves. We are all familiar with Social Security and its importance. It is a given. But the American people may not be as familiar with the principal and interest on U.S. bonds. This is the payment Uncle Sam makes to various persons and countries that hold our debt. It can be U.S. citizens who hold our debt or it can be countries such as China, Japan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. I might add that the foreign countries that hold most of the U.S. debt among the countries I listed are China and Japan. They hold the most foreign debt. The continuing resolution categorizes the interest to these foreign bondholders as a must-pay bill--we must pay those first; that is, Social Security and interest. It leaves all other obligations of the Federal budget to be paid only by the revenue Treasury has on hand on any given day. Some days revenue comes in and some days revenue comes in more than others. Critical programs will be left fighting for the remaining scraps of funding. In effect, the House proposal to prioritize payments would result in the interests of America's veterans, the unemployed, and students, among others, being left behind the interests of China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. It is pay Russia first, pay U.S. veterans second--if there is money left over to pay U.S. veterans. This proposal makes no sense. A few of the programs that would compete for funding under the House plan are veterans' benefits, child nutrition, military salaries, military operations and maintenance, Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals, student loans, highway funding, dollars for air traffic controllers, unemployment insurance, and tax refunds, to name a few. They are all going to have to compete with each other for what is left after interest on the debt and Social Security payments are made under the House measure. Can you imagine the result? Medicare beneficiaries will be pitted against disabled vets, each fighting the other. Students receiving Pell grants will be up against patients receiving medical care; doctors conducting cancer research would be pitted against agents patrolling our borders. The chaos that would ensue would be unimaginable. We can't even begin to fathom the chaos. When this scheme was first proposed during the debt limit debate in January, it became obvious what it would be like. I compared it to the movie ``The Hunger Games,'' hunger games where individuals were out scrapping, trying to save their own lives and killing other people to save their own lives. The sequel ``The Hunger Games'' is not out until November, but we can now see the coming attractions of the House CR. Their plan for a debt prioritization would pit one program against another in a fight for survival. Under this ill-conceived plan, the Secretary of Treasury would be given unprecedented power to decide which programs are funded and which are eliminated. It is in the Treasury Secretary's hands. He decides, the President decides: Do veterans get paid, do Medicare beneficiaries get paid, does the military get paid? That is up to the Treasury Secretary and the President. No such power should ever be placed in the hands of any Treasury Secretary, regardless of party affiliation. No Member of Congress who believes in our system of checks and balances can honestly advocate for this idea to stand. In article I of the Constitution, Congress decides what appropriations should be paid, not the executive branch. Finally, this House proposal is wrong for the country. Why? Because it ignores the progress we have made over the past 2 years to actually reduce America's deficits and debt. With the adoption of the Budget Control Act in 2011 and the fiscal year cliff agreement earlier this year, debt has been stabilized. Together with interest savings, these actions will cut the deficit by about $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years. Add in the savings for winding down operations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and the total deficit reduction reaches almost $3.7 trillion over 10 years. These are real savings. All this progress must not be ignored. I agree with many of my colleagues that even more can be done to reduce the deficit and promote economic growth. But those actions should be separate from the debt limit debate. It is a different subject. We are in no position to play games with the economy. It is completely irresponsible to threaten default on the debt. Since 1789, this country has always honored its obligations. We paid our bills. We are known for that. Americans know and people around the world know that America, up to this date, anyway, has always paid its bills. Even when the Capitol burned to the ground in 1814, guess what, America still honored its debts. Yet I heard a Senator say a few weeks ago that failing to raise the debt limit is ``no big deal.'' No big deal. I couldn't imagine when I heard those words. It is more than a big deal; it is more than a huge deal. It is a catastrophic deal. It is something that is so bad it is unimaginable. People have forgotten the summer of 2011. Remember August of 2011? People have forgotten what happened when Congress failed to address the debt limit decisively. I remember what happened. The dysfunctional debt-ceiling debate led to the first ever downgrade of America's credit rating--the first ever downgrade of America's credit rating. I remember the stock market plunged 635 points the day after the S&P downgrade. I remember that 14-day trading period in the summer of 2011 when the Dow plummeted more than 2000 points, about 20 percent. Consumer confidence back then dropped even lower than it did in the heat of the 2008 financial crisis, and it took nearly a year to recover. Worst was the impact on jobs. During the months Congress was fighting over the debt limit, job creation fell by nearly 50 percent. Remember, Congress did still raise the debt ceiling without defaulting, but the political brinkmanship did all that damage to the economy. We did raise the debt, but look at what damage the brinkmanship caused to our economy. We cannot let that happen again. Time is running short. We need to stop playing games. This will to fight is getting us nowhere. Enough with the threat of default; enough of the schemes to prioritize payments. As President Reagan said: The United States has a special responsibility to itself and to the world to meet its obligations. It is time we accept our responsibility. It is time for us to work together. It is time for us to get the job done. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I finish speaking, the Senator from Maryland Senator Mikulski would have the floor for 15 minutes, and then Senator Alexander from Tennessee be yielded the floor for 20 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today, as I often do, with a quote. It comes from a conservative leader speaking out about a new health care law. He said: We are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program. He went on to call the pending legislation ``socialism.'' He went on, saying: Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasps as it is at this moment. Those are frightening words. When were they spoken? Not spoken in 2010 or 2011. Not spoken in 2012 or 2013. Rather, these words were spoken in 1964. And who do you suppose spoke them? Ronald Reagan. President Reagan was speaking out against Medicare, which became law the following year. Now fast forward 20 years and things were quite different. President Reagan said in 1984: Millions of Americans depend on the Medicare program to help meet their health care costs. We must ensure the long- term solvency of the Medicare program, and I'm confident we can find the right solutions in a bipartisan manner. What do you suppose happened in that 20-year period to change President Reagan's mind? The hysterics ended, people gave the new program room to breathe, and it worked. Medicare gave America's seniors access to health care they had never had before. The same pattern emerges when we look farther back into history. Consider Social Security. In 1935, one Senator said Social Security would ``go a long way toward destroying American initiative and courage.'' Another Member of Congress said, ``The lash of the dictator will be felt.'' These are criticisms of landmark legislation, monumental laws that are now vital to the very health and welfare of our Nation. While criticized in their conception, Social Security and Medicare are now considered the most successful large-scale Federal programs in our Nation's history. I am confident history will treat the Affordable Care Act in a similar fashion. I am confident the complaints of those who have gone so far as to call the Affordable Care Act ``a crime against democracy'' or a ``centralized health dictatorship'' will soon be drowned out by the voices of the American people whose lives are better off. Why? Because of the Affordable Care Act. Already the ACA has done more than any other laws of the past century to expand health coverage. In the past 3 years, the ACA has provided 71 million Americans free preventive services. More than 6 million seniors have received discounts on vital prescription drugs. More than 3 million young people have peace of mind in knowing they are allowed to stay on their parents' health plans until they turn 26. I am especially proud of the fact that now no child--no child--can ever be denied health coverage because of a preexisting health condition. All that, and the full benefits of the law have not yet taken effect. The Affordable Care Act is not a perfect law, but neither were Social Security or Medicare when they passed Congress. Adjustments may need to be made to improve the ACA, as well to make it stronger, make it better. It would be easier to make improvements if everyone on Capitol Hill participated. But we are not getting that chance from half of the Congress. Instead, opponents are making every effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act, fighting to take away its many benefits from America's families and businesses. Last week, the House passed a continuing resolution to pay for the government for the remainder of the year. But that bill before us today included amendments to end all funding and to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. I want to be very clear here: We are not going to let that happen. We are not going to go back to the status quo. We are not going back to a broken system where more than 50 million Americans lack health insurance. We are not going back to a system that allows the costs of medical care to overwhelm a family and force them into bankruptcy. We are not going back to a system that allows the simple lack of insurance to contribute to the death of thousands of Americans each year. We are not going back or returning to the status quo. No, we are not going to do that. Rather, we are full steam ahead on implementing the Affordable Care Act. In 6 days, the health exchanges--or marketplaces--will open for business and the Affordable Care Act kicks in. What does that mean? For the majority of Americans, nothing. Really. Despite all the scare tactics, despite all the rhetoric, nothing will change for the millions of Americans who already get health insurance from their employers, from Medicare, Medicaid, or from the Veterans' Administration. But for those almost 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance, they will now have access to affordable care and peace of mind. Thanks to Federal tax credits and subsidies, for the first time millions of working-class families will pay less than $100 a month for health insurance. And for the most vulnerable among us, they will receive care through an expanded Medicaid. No one--no one--can be denied health insurance any more. That is unless some in the House have their way. Their intention--fully spelled out in the continuing resolution before us--is to undermine and defund America's health care law. For years, we have been trying to solve the problem of rising health care costs. For years, we have been trying to help working families gain access to comprehensive coverage that doesn't make them go bankrupt or deplete their household budgets. Past Presidents, Congresses, and other policymakers have tried to fix this problem time and again. And we sit here today with a solution--the Affordable Care Act. For the first time, every American will be guaranteed health coverage. It will no longer be legal for health insurers to deny someone coverage for a preexisting condition, such as breast cancer or pregnancy. Before the ACA, being pregnant was a preexisting condition, if you can believe that. That is what the health insurance industry thought. That is wrong. And with the passage of this act, that is no longer the case. Pregnancy is no longer a preexisting condition. But the House wants to stop this and continue limiting consumer protections and access to affordable care. The ACA also provides free preventive service, such as wellness visits and mammograms. Since the law passed, 71 million Americans have received preventive benefits such as these for free. But the House wants to take this away. Under the ACA, insurers can no longer impose lifetime or annual limits on care. This means more than 105 million Americans no longer have a cap or a limit on their coverage. No longer can insurance companies say: No, no, no. No more. But the House wants to take this away too. Approximately 3.1 million young adults have gained coverage through an ACA provision that allows them to stay on their parents' health insurance plan until the age of 26. We have all heard so many comments about this provision from so many constituents in our States. But no, the House wants to take that away as well. I am concerned about the effects of the House continuing resolution not only on health care reform but also on seniors in Medicare. Leader Reid and I wrote a letter last week to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and asked her what impact the House CR would have on the operation of Medicare. Specifically, we asked how the CR would affect the beneficiaries' access to care. Last Friday we received a response, and it confirmed our fears. The House bill would have much broader and more harmful implications for the Medicare Program and for seniors. In her letter, Secretary Sebelius said the CR would ``severely impact the Medicare program.'' She goes on to note the House CR would eliminate funding for Medicare prescription drug coverage, forcing seniors to pay more for their prescriptions. The Secretary also said the House CR would disrupt payments to doctors and cut off annual wellness visits, forcing seniors to pay out of pocket for preventive services. In addition, Medicare beneficiaries may be forced to drop their Medicare Advantage plans and enroll in traditional fee-for-service. It is clear the House CR would have dire consequences for the more than 46 million Americans who rely on Medicare every day. In her letter, Secretary Sebelius also stressed the severe impact the House CR would have on children and working families and the most vulnerable among us. The ACA expanded Medicaid, allowing States to cover low-income adults for the first time. The House CR would end this coverage, sending this vulnerable population back to the emergency room for treatment and putting hospitals on the hook for providing care. The ACA also expanded access for services to people with disabilities and other long-term care needs. The CR would put an immediate stop to these programs and send people with disabilities back to the nursing home. The Affordable Care Act also extended the Children's Health Insurance Program for 2 additional years. The House CR, you guessed it, reverts back to prior law, ending vital funding for this program at the end of this month. The House CR would also leave 6 million children without access to coverage--no doctor appointments, no prescriptions, no cast to heal the occasional broken arm. For 3 years, a group of Republicans in the House has wasted taxpayer money, time, and resources trying to stop the act, over and over again. They have tried to repeal this law 40 times. They even took their argument all the way to the Supreme Court. Of course, we all know what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Court said the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. The Supreme Court upheld it. It is the law. People fear what they do not know. I understand that. But let's all take a deep breath. As one Republican Senator recently noted, it is ``not rational'' to think the Senate will vote to repeal, delay, or defund the ACA. You know what. He is right, it is not rational. We won't go back to the status quo. This is complex legislation, and I am open to strengthening the law to better serve the American people, just as this Congress did with Social Security and Medicare. Wouldn't it be better if both parties worked together to improve the law, something that is here with us? It is not going to be repealed. Let's work to improve it. That is what the American people expect of us. They do not want the government to shut down. They do not want America to default on its debt over the ACA. A recent poll by CNBC found the vast majority of Americans--59 percent--oppose defunding the Affordable Care Act at the cost of a government shutdown or debt default. Almost 60 percent said no, don't do that, that is not smart. We all have a responsibility to lead. The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. We all need to work together to make it work for families and businesses who depend on it instead of using it as a political football. Enough is enough. It is time for the hysterics to end. People need to give the ACA room to breathe and a chance to succeed. If we do so, I am confident America will be better for it and we will all be on the right side of history. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I deeply thank and am humbled by the senior Senator from Maryland. Coming from her, that is a high compliment, and I deeply appreciate it.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be allowed the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 113th Session: Kevin McNellis, Carly Borth, Stephen Jenkins, Sibyl Tilson, Taylor Harvey, Matthew Deavers, Craig Dobson, Louis Evans, Danielle Parnass, and Robert Andres.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Just outside this Chamber are the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and dozens of statesmen cast in bronze and marble. I often look to these individuals for inspiration and quotes when writing a speech. On a recent walk across the Capitol to meet my colleague, Congressman Dave Camp, I passed a giant statue of Andrew Jackson, our Nation's seventh President. It was Jackson who famously said--and I quote him The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation that would operate with perfect equality. Those words were spoken by Jackson in 1832. More than 180 years later, our Nation still struggles with a broken tax system. Our Tax Code today is inequitable, inefficient, and incomprehensible to the overwhelming majority of Americans. It contains nearly 4 million words--4 million. If someone were to try to read the entire code out loud, it would take them more than 18 uninterrupted days. Not only is the code long; it is maddeningly complex. There are 42 different definitions of a small business in the code--42. There are 15 different tax incentives for higher education--so many that the IRS had to publish a booklet to explain and simplify the higher education tax incentives. And that book--I have it with me--is 90 pages long--just on the education tax incentives. Here it is. I defy anybody to read it, let alone somebody trying to go to college or a parent trying to help his or her child go to college. The code is such a labyrinth that 90 percent of American taxpayers have to use an accountant or some kind of computer software to file their tax returns. Even with all this assistance, it still takes the average taxpayer 13 hours to gather and compile the receipts and forms to comply with the code. The Tax Code today is also inefficient and unfair. It is riddled with loopholes and deductions that result in more than $1 trillion in lost revenue each year. This complexity in the code is eroding confidence in our economy and creating uncertainty for America's families and businesses. Many Americans think of the other guy, the fancy lawyer who can take advantage of the code and pay lower taxes, which means more tax burden on to me. It is not fair. Confidence is eroding. It is also threatening to undermine the competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace. Harvard Business School did a survey last year asking 10,000 of its graduates who live and conduct business around the world about the challenges of doing business in America. These individuals--these 10,000--are leaders on the frontlines of the global economy, and they are pessimistic about America's economic future. The vast majority of those surveyed--71 percent--expected U.S. competitiveness to deteriorate over the next several years. And what did they identify as the root of America's competitiveness problem? Respondents pointed to America's Tax Code--to the code--as one of the greatest weaknesses in the U.S. business environment. Dig deeper and you learn respondents were deterred from investing in the United States not simply by a higher statutory corporate tax rate, but also by the sheer complexity and uncertain future of the Tax Code. I might say, when I mention that report to people, to businesses, to Americans, they nod their heads in agreement. That is what they have found themselves too. The survey concludes with a dire warning--and I quote the survey: For the first time in decades, the business environment in the United States is in danger of falling behind the rest of the world. That's bad news for everyone. A fundamentally weakened U.S. economy is not only an American problem but also a global risk. Chairman Camp and I have been working together for more than 2 years on comprehensive tax reform. Here in the Senate I have been working on tax reform for the past 3 years with my good friend Senator Hatch, the ranking member of the Finance Committee. We have held more than 30 hearings and heard from hundreds of experts about how tax reform can simplify the system for families, help businesses innovate, and make the United States more competitive. A lot of people talk about more jobs. There is a lot of talk about more jobs. This is one way to get more jobs. If we reform the Tax Code, it will unleash so much positive energy in this country. It would create a lot more jobs than any other plan I have recently heard of. We held more than 30 hearings, heard from hundreds of experts on how reform can simplify the system, help businesses innovate, and make the United States more competitive. Last month Senator Hatch and I completed work with the Finance Committee on an extensive, 3-month, top-to-bottom review of the Tax Code. We met as a full committee every week to collect feedback on different topics in tax reform and issued a series of 10 discussion papers to kick off that conversation. In an effort to include the entire Senate in our efforts, we recently called on all Senators to partner with us and provide their input and ideas for reforming the code. Starting with a blank slate, we called on every Senator to submit their proposals for what they want to see in a reformed code. This is an important exercise. Everyone needs to be involved. We need every Senator to weigh in on tax reform. I might say, the deadline is this Friday, tomorrow. I encourage all of my colleagues to submit their ideas and make their voices heard. I might say, your constituents are certainly making their voices heard. We have received more than 10,000 comments and ideas so far through the Web site that Chairman Camp and I created called taxreform.gov--actually, 10,258 responses, to be exact. Overwhelmingly, Americans, from every corner of our country, are calling for a simplified Tax Code. People think they should not have to spend hours upon hours and hundreds of dollars to prepare their taxes, and I for one agree. Let me share a couple of submissions we have received on our Web site. Jennifer, from Hollywood, MD, writes: I've been doing my family's taxes for 22 years. This year my husband suggested we use a tax service. Why? The tax code is too complicated and he was concerned we were missing deductions. Mike, from Fort Collins, CO, provides an example of the complexity in the code, writing: I have been a tax assistance volunteer for 19 years. It is difficult to tell someone who knows what a child is that there are actually four different definitions for ``a child'' in the tax law. Make the same definition apply across the entire tax code. The best way is the simplest way. Wendy from Irving, CA, writes: I do not mind paying taxes--we need education, infrastructure, and a defense. What I do mind is that it is a complete mystery and a complete game to find every allowable deduction and that it is a significant burden as well as a significant expense to pay a qualified preparer. How has this come to be? My returns are 20-50 pages long. Why is it more than two? There must be a way to simplify the process. You know what. Wendy is right. There must be a way to simplify the process. That is the same message Chairman Camp and I heard earlier this month in St. Paul, MN. We were in the Twin Cities for the first in a series of trips we are taking across the country to speak with people about tax reform. We want to get out of Washington. We are doing it this summer. We are going to Philadelphia next Monday to get input and feedback from people on dealing with America's tax system. St. Paul was a great trip. We met with leaders of two distinctly different types of American businesses--one a U.S.-based multinational corporation with more than 85,000 employees, the other a family-run bakery with 85 employees. While dramatically different in size and in industry, they face similar challenges when it comes to dealing with America's Tax Code. In conversation after conversation we heard the same thing: We need a simpler Tax Code. St. Paul was just the first stop. As I mentioned, the next trip is Philadelphia. Then we plan to go to the west coast. We have other trips planned over the next couple of months. We are going to talk to groups about how we can make the tax system fairer and easier to deal with, and we want to learn how we can restore some confidence in the code. Our efforts on reform have been ramping up. We are continuing to build momentum. Reform provides a historic opportunity to give families certainty, spark growth, create jobs, and make businesses more competitive to provide America a real shot in the arm. I will conclude my remarks as I began them--with a quote. These words are from our Nation's sixth President, John Quincy Adams. President Adams: Patience and perseverance have a magical effect before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish. That is where we are. We are patient. We are persevering. We have a lot to do. The difficulties will disappear, obstacles will vanish, and the best result will be that the American people have a simpler, fairer code to provide more jobs. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. I also thank my friend from Maine for her indulgence. Believe me, I will be as short as I possibly can. I deeply appreciate their indulgence. Tax Code Reform I am here to basically say I believe we must very aggressively reform our Tax Code. It has not been updated since 1986. Since that date, it has built up barnacles, loopholes, deductions, credits. There have been 15,000 changes to the Tax Code since 1986, and there have been additions. There have not been subtractions. Our code is out of date. Other countries have kept their tax codes up to date. They have ensured that their companies are more competitive with changes in their tax codes. We have not done so. Our American companies are losing out. They are losing out to other companies worldwide because our code has not kept up to date. In fact, there is a recent survey by Harvard Business School. Harvard Business School surveyed over 10,000 of its graduates over a short period of time. The conclusion of that survey, from those who responded, is America is starting to lose its competitiveness. We are losing out. Why? Many reasons. But the one that bubbles up the most, the one that was most telling, is our Tax Code. Two reasons: One, they said, is the high rates. Our Tax Code's top rate, 35 percent for corporations, is much higher than is the rate for other countries worldwide. Other countries have lowered their top corporate rate. We have not lowered ours. As a consequence, when there is a merger, the consequence is that the headquarters ends up in another country, very simply because the tax rate in that country is lower than it is in the United States. The Anheuser InBev merger is one of many examples. The second reason they give to the Code, why the U.S. Tax Code is causing the United States to be less competitive, is not only because our rates are higher but because our Code is so more complex. It is very difficult for people doing business in the United States or Americans doing business in the United States or people in other countries who work with the U.S. Tax Code to deal with our Tax Code because it is so complex. In addition, our Code needs to be updated because it is so complex, not only from an international perspective but from a domestic perspective. Americans as individuals do not trust the Code. It is too complex. They cannot figure out their own returns. I might say, myself, it was not too many years ago I was sitting down at the kitchen table trying to figure out my own tax returns. I am not a wealthy man. Frankly, I had to give up. I could not figure it out. I felt un- American that I could not figure out my own taxes, especially as somebody who went to college, went to law school, is in the Senate. I still cannot do my own taxes. Something is not quite right there. Many Americans believe, as a consequence, that somebody else is getting some deductions and credits when they hire a fancy lawyer. They are getting credits and deductions that they are not getting. Then small businesses. Small business has a devil of a time keeping up with rules and regulations, let alone tax provisions. They spend much more of their dollars on regulations, including tax returns, hiring CPAs to figure out the returns than big business does. It is usually the big business that can deal with the complexity of the Code. It is much more difficult for small businesses. The complexity of the Code is hurting our country because it is also hurting small business in America. I might say too, as a couple of examples of the complexity, there are 42 definitions of a small business--42 different definitions in the Code of small business. There are either three or four definitions of a child. My Lord, you would think we all know what a child is. But there are three or four different definitions of what constitutes a child. There are many--I forgot the exact number--many different provisions in the Code with respect to the education deduction--education credit. In my hand is a 90-page document explaining the education deductions alone--90-page document. You think the American family, American students have the patience to go through a 90-page document that explains which deductions are available and which are not? No way. That has got to be simplified. So we must simplify the Code, get rid of a lot of the junk, frankly. I believe the approach we are taking in the Finance Committee is the correct approach. We have had over 50 hearings in the Finance Committee. We have had many sessions in the committee about what is next, as the occupant of the chair knows. The approach we are taking is very simple: We are starting with a clean slate. We are getting rid of all of the deductions, all of the credits. They total about $1.2 trillion annually. We are getting rid of them all--$12 trillion over 10 years. Get rid of them all, then start to build up which ones seem to make the most sense. Senator Hatch and I are working together. This is a bipartisan bill. The ranking member of the Finance Committee and I are together in this approach. We have asked our colleagues on the committee, off the committee, all Senators both sides of the aisle: Give us your submissions. What do you want added back to the clean slate? Do you want anything added back? If you want something added back, how do you want to change it, how to tailor it? We are not going to stand here and mention lots of different ways it can be changed. Senators know what they are. I think by working through Senators, it is more likely to be a better, a more solid, productive product. I urge all of my colleagues, send us your submissions. Send your submissions. There are a couple of Senators on the floor. I hope they have submitted their suggestions. They indicated they have. Good. I urge my colleagues to do so, because we are hearing directly from constituents. We have a Web site. It is taxreform.org. There were 10,000 submissions from around the country of people telling us what they want. I submit, if our constituents are telling us how they want the Tax Code changed, at the very least we as Senators should also indicate how we would like to see the Tax Code changed and be in on the ground floor starting out, rather than having to come out on the floor and offer amendments, adding something back in that has to be paid for. If it is added back in, I do not think that is something Senators want to do. We will mark up the tax bill this fall. There is going to be a markup. There is going to be a markup this fall. I am guessing--I do not like to predict dates because sometimes they change, but sometime this fall, September, October, November, in there, we are going to mark up a tax bill. I urge Senators to be ready. This is bipartisan. I have worked overboard. I have had meetings personally with every single Senator about the Tax Code. At lunch today, for example, Chairman Camp and I-- we meet weekly. At lunch today, we are meeting with 10 House Members, 10 Senators--a total of 10. We call it ``burgers and beer'' every 2 weeks over at the Irish Times. That is symbolic, because that is where the last Tax Code in 1986 was in many respects put together. The more we get to know each other, get to know House Members--I must confess there are a couple of House Members whom I did not know and they did not know who I was. We talk about kids, we talk about tax reform. It is a bonding process to get to know each other better. Dave Camp and I are going around the country. We went to the Twin Cities a couple of weeks ago, met with 3M, with management, with their employees, and met with a small bakery. It is called Bald Eagle Bakery. We are going to Philadelphia a week from next Monday. I think we are going over to Delaware; I am not sure. We will be up in New Jersey. I apologize to the Presiding Officer. It is New Jersey. We are going to Philadelphia and New Jersey for another session. There will be others. We are traveling around the country. We want to talk to people to see what they have to say. I think this is the way to crack some of this partisan gridlock around here, this partisan deadlock around here. How? We are working together, low key, building from the bottom to the top with these sessions, these meetings, discussions, keep talking. Because we all know the Tax Code needs to be reformed. It is way dated. It is out of date. A small example is all of the exempt provisions, the 501(c)(4)s and (3)s, and so forth. This has not been addressed for over 50 years. All of the money since Citizens United is tax exempt, trying to find a safe home; that is, where there is no disclosure of either donors or amount. That has got to be maybe addressed as well. That is just one example. My main point is to first indicate there is going to be a markup. It is an opportunity for Senators to send in their submissions. The deadline is the end of this week. I urge all of my colleagues to do so. Finally, I am very grateful for my friends from Maine and Washington for allowing me to take time. I thank them very much.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a very special person who has served the people of Montana for 37 years: Elizabeth Ching. Our Liz retired from the U.S. Senate on June 30, 2013. Of course, she started her new job the very next day, on July 1. Her so-called retirement lasted less than 24-hours. That is the kind of work ethic that has made Liz famous. When she has a task to accomplish, she simply doesn't rest until it is done. She is a workhorse and one of the kindest, most dedicated people I know. Liz was a staff assistant on the Select Committee for Presidential Campaigns and the Budget Committee before joining my team in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1975. Liz continued her career in the U.S. Senate. As one of the first members of my team, Liz has literally helped thousands of Montanans over the years. She has also worn many hats over the last thirty-seven years proving that no job is too small or too large for her to tackle with heart and soul. In many ways, Liz and I grew up together learning the ropes of Congress. Little did we know back in 1975 when I first hired her how much we would be able to accomplish for Montanans. She has helped support Montana outreach efforts on three farm bills, four highway bills, four major rural water project bills, and the Affordable Care Act. In her early years in my Washington, DC office, she was my office manager. In 1995, she moved to Montana to be assistant to the state director. Her titles from 1996 through today include grants coordinator, State casework director, agriculture issues eastern Montana and director of constituent services, and Montana economic development director. As our economic development director, Liz has played a key role in making our Montana Economic Development Summits a success--helping make connections that have resulted in hundreds of Montana jobs. More recently, she has been an ambassador to energy- impacted communities in the Bakken region helping them to understand and access the myriad of Federal programs available to absorb the pressures of the Bakken oil and gas boom. While we will all miss having her on staff, I am thrilled to know that she will have the opportunity to continue serving Montanans through her passion for economic development. Liz has worked on more than 17,000 cases for Montanans on issues such as small business, labor, agriculture, veterans, appropriations, transportation, housing, postal services, health, environment, energy, banking, and economic issues. I have always been thankful to have Liz in my corner. I can only imagine how each and every one of those 17,000 individuals felt knowing that Liz answered the call when they needed help. In addition to her legislative achievements and impressive constituent work, Liz mentored thousands of interns and young staff assistants over the years, gently educating them in all facets of protocol, policy, and poise. Always on the road, working tirelessly on individual casework and larger community issues, often I received e-mails and notes from Montanans sharing their gratitude for Liz's support and knowledge of the issues that matter most to them. One of her greatest talents is bringing key people together for discussions and setting the table for meaningful teamwork. While she is known statewide for her work, Liz is truly a pillar of the Billings community. Whether there is a road to build, a bridge to fix, a new store opening, or a building burnt down, Liz has always been there to uplift those in need or help with the groundbreakings, ribbon- cuttings, dedications, and donations. I cannot fully express how amazing Liz has been as a liaison for our office. While I could go on and on about Liz's professional accomplishments, I know she is most proud of her wonderful marriage to Kevin Dowling and the beautiful family they have raised together. Her amazing family is truly a testament to the type of person she is. Liz and Kevin have three terrific children: Tierney, Aidan, and Seanan, and one grandson Kaiven. Everyone privileged to know Liz is touched by her contagious zest for life and endless energy. Her colleagues in Washington, DC, and Montana have the highest regard and appreciation for her many years of service, friendship, and determination to do everything she can for all Montanans in need of any kind of assistance. I personally owe her a big thank-you. Liz, you are truly one of a kind. We are all rooting for you on your new adventures.