Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Of the current fee.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is true.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct. I might also say this fund was created in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill.

Mr. BAUCUS. I think that is the amount. I am not certain, but it is about that.

Mr. BAUCUS. Forty-one cents.

Mr. BAUCUS. The current oil priced at $71 a barrel.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. I might say that is my reading of the Budget Act; that is correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is exactly correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is the precise theory of all trust funds in the first place, but now the cap needs to be raised.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. If the fund is not large enough, that is exactly correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I know my friend wants to speak, but let me just set the lay of the land so my friend from Vermont can speak. The Senate has returned to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. I want to remind my colleagues this bill is about jobs. It is about helping 15 million Americans who have lost their jobs as well. We are talking about people who have worked, who want to work, and who will work again. These are our neighbors, and they need our help. The Labor Department just reported that although things are getting better, there are still five unemployed Americans for every job opening available--five. For comparison, throughout 2007 there were fewer than two unemployed workers for every job opening. Again, today there are five. We need to do more to help create jobs. We need to continue to help those who do not have jobs to get by. Let me also remind my colleagues that hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans need the assistance in this bill just to get by. The Senate needs to pass this bill, and we need to do it soon. As I have noted, this bill is about jobs. This bill is about helping the 15 million Americans who have lost their jobs. I remind my colleagues about that because, so far, aside from the substitute, none of the amendments offered is about jobs or about helping the 15 million Americans who have lost their jobs. Many of the pending amendments are worthy efforts, but I encourage my colleagues to stick to the task, to address the subject at hand, and to pass this bill. People need help. Right now, we have five amendments pending: this Senator's amendment in the nature of a substitute, the Sessions amendment to cap appropriations, the Cardin amendment to provide for dependent coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, the Franken amendment to create the homeowner advocate in the Home Affordable Modification Program, and the Cornyn amendment for more reports on government debt. The majority leader has requested that the Senate address the backlog of pending amendments before we allow more amendments to become pending. That is why I am serving notice that until we have voted on some of the pending amendments, I will be obliged to object to setting aside any of the pending amendments in order to allow further amendments to become pending. Thus, we would like to line up some of the votes, Mr. President. If possible, we would like to have votes at least by noon or, at the very latest, 2 p.m. We very much hope we can make some progress today-- not just hopefully but make progress. It is our obligation to make progress. That is our job. People elected us to do what is right for America. It is right to help extend these so-called tax extenders, the R&D tax credit, and so on and so forth, but it is also right to make sure unemployment benefits are available for those who are out of work. I urge us to come together and do our work in these next couple of days. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, prior to enactment of health care reform, there was no law that required insurers to extend coverage for young adults to remain on their parents' plans. For years, getting a diploma also meant losing your health insurance. And whether you went on to college or not, it was often hard as a young person to find affordable coverage. Overall, Americans in their twenties were twice as likely to go without health insurance as older Americans. For too many young Americans over the years, the answer to these questions was simply to go without health insurance and hope that you stayed healthy. Under the new health reform law, insurers will be required to allow all Americans under the age of 26 who do not get health insurance through their job to stay on their parents' plan. And beginning in 2014, children up to age 26 can stay on their parent's employer plan even if they have another offer of coverage through an employer. This provision is scheduled to go into effect in September. But every major insurance company--more than 65 in total--and several major self- insured organizations have said they will provide continuous coverage for young adults this summer. The amendment by the Senator from Maryland would make it possible for the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program to follow the lead of private insurance companies and make this coverage available sooner, as well. This is a worthy goal. And the amendment would have negligible effects on the budget. And so I support the motion by the Senator from Maryland and urge my colleagues to vote for it.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I support transparency. I think most of us do, certainly in concept. I support the transparency and deficit reduction goals of the Cornyn-Kyl amendment. But that amendment is unworkable. Why? Because it requires Treasury to speculate about the intent behind foreign purchases of U.S. Treasuries. How in the world is Treasury going to be able to know the intent behind foreign purchases of U.S. treasuries? The Cornyn-Kyl amendment also sends the wrong message that the United States is deeply suspicious of foreign holders of U.S. debt, and it potentially could chill foreign purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. I do not think we want to do that now. Purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds have held interest rates very low. We are very lucky. We are very lucky. I do not think many appreciate this: With the budget deficits we have, and even with unemployment way too high, things could be much worse; that is, if interest rates were much higher. But investors like the safe haven of U.S. Treasuries--and that is domestic and foreign purchases of U.S. Treasuries--and that is helping to keep interest rates down at very low rates, and that is keeping inflation down at very low rates. We are lucky that is a condition we are experiencing in the United States today. With America just beginning to recover from the financial crisis, we cannot risk our ability to finance the debt. We cannot risk it. For those reasons, I must oppose the Cornyn amendment. However, I urge Senators to support my side-by-side amendment, which meets the transparency objectives of the Cornyn-Kyl amendment, but could actually be implemented and will avoid roiling financial markets in this time of uncertainty. Think a bit about what is happening in Europe. This is an uncertain time. This is not a time to be taking big risks. Rather, it is a time to be steady as she goes and be smart and be steady. My amendment would require the President to submit an assessment to Congress on the risks posed by foreign holdings of U.S. debt, but without unnecessarily singling out individual countries. I do not think we want to single out individual countries because that has too great a risk of unintended consequences. My amendment would require the GAO to assess the risk associated with Federal debt, but it would not impose an unconstitutional requirement on the President. I am joined in this amendment by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry, and the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd. I urge Senators to support the Baucus-Kerry side-by-side amendment and oppose the Cornyn-Kyl amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the rest of my time, and I wonder if the Senator from Texas is prepared to yield back his.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield back our time as well, and I move to table the Cornyn amendment. Wait. Which amendment is up first? Mr. President, 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, as I understand it, although the Senator from Texas personally is, the other side is not prepared to yield back the rest of their time. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time and Senator Cornyn's time as well.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct. I understand you are OK, but your side is--now they are OK. So now that we have that settled, all time is yielded back.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about one of the things that I love most about Montana--the North Fork of the Flathead River. Everyone who experiences the Flathead Valley in northwestern Montana is awed by its pristine waters, larger than life landscapes, and breathtaking views. With its headwaters in British Columbia, the North Fork of the Flathead River forms the western boundary of Glacier National Park--it is one of the last untouched places on our continent. For decades, the North Fork has been threatened by oil and gas and mining proposals in British Columbia. For the last 35 years, I have battled these proposals, one by one. After 35 years of work, we are beginning a new chapter of international cooperation in our efforts to protect the North Fork. I am very pleased that Conoco Phillips is a part of this. In February of this year, British Columbia and Montana announced their intent to prevent mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development in the North Fork on the lands they control. Senator Tester and I pledged to do our part to establish extra protections south of the border, where 90 percent of the North Fork watershed is already federally owned. So, on March 4, we introduced the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, S. 3075, which bans future mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development on Federal lands in the watershed. The bill enjoys support from business and conservation interests alike from all over the State, including the Kalispell Chamber, Whitefish Mountain Resort, the Billings Rod and Gun Club, and a long list of others. This breadth of support shows the importance of the North Fork for Montana's economy as well as our State's outdoor heritage. There are some current leases in the area that have been dormant since the late 1980s, when a court decision found that they were improperly issued. Senator Tester and I have been engaged in active discussions with the current owners to retire these old leases. On April 28, I was proud to announce that ConocoPhillips, the primary leaseholder in the North Fork watershed, elected to voluntarily relinquish its interest in 108 Federal oil and gas leases covering approximately 169,000 acres, representing 71 percent of the leased area in the North Fork watershed. ConocoPhillips should be commended for this decision and their stewardship of this very unique, special place. Their action is further evidence of the consensus that exists between the United States and Canada and among businesses and conservationists, that the withdrawal of these Federal lands from leasing is the only path forward. In 1975, during my first term in the House of Representatives, I introduced a bill to designate the Flathead River as a Wild and Scenic River. It was designated in 1976. For me, that began a lifelong effort to protect the North Fork. At that time I said: A hundred years from now, and perhaps much sooner, those who follow us will survey what we have left behind. This action brings us one step closer to ensuring that that every Montanan, every American, and every Canadian who follows us will have the opportunity to share our feeling of awestruck wonder that such a place still exists, almost untouched by the modern world.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, it is with interest that I listened to my colleague from Tennessee for several reasons. One, he is debating a law that has already passed. It is strange to me that he wants to relitigate health care reform. But it is not so strange because I know that that is the tack the other side is going to be taking for the rest of this year. At every opportunity, Senators on the other side of the aisle, all of whom voted against health care reform, will sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of the American people. They don't come up with constructive ideas on how to improve the work of something that has already passed into law. Rather, they stand on the law and tear down something that has passed, sowing the seeds of doubt with misinformation. It is unfortunate, because it has caused the American people to wonder who they can trust, especially when one side only speaks ill of a major program such as health care rather than trying to come up with constructive ideas. That is what is happening right now. We heard a statement from a Senator who is trying to basically score points in the November elections by sowing the seeds of doubt and confusion over health care reform. The truth is not what the Senator just said. The Senator from Tennessee takes issue with efforts of the government to explain the new health care law. He is implying that it is disingenuous, that it is not fair, that it is one-sided. I remind all my colleagues that when the drug benefit came out, proposed by the administration of a different political philosophy, they didn't pay for it--all unpaid for, every red cent. They put all kinds of literature out, all kinds of brochures to tout the drug benefit. There were some who thought it wasn't fair. There were some who thought it was biased. I will not litigate that issue, but I do know that charge was made many times when the administration of a different political persuasion was touting the drug benefit legislation that passed not too long ago. I have spoken with this administration several times about getting the proper information out; that is, not to tilt, gild the lily, bias. At hearings I have made that clear to administration officials. I for one do not want this administration or any administration to be unfair in explaining the program to the American people. I think the brochure the Senator talks about is fair and straightforward. I just happened to pull up the Web site yesterday and looked at it to see what it said. I was impressed. There is a lot of information there I didn't know about. It didn't at all come across to me, trying to be objective and fair, as one-sided. It was an honest effort to explain to the American people what health care reform is. The new law takes steps to improve the quality of health care. Let me go back to what the Senator said. No. 1, he took issue with the paragraph that said the new law increases the quality of health care. Of course, the new law increases the quality of health care. The Senator from Tennessee is sowing the seeds of doubt as to whether this new law actually does increase the quality of health care. Let me explain how it does. First, there is delivery system reform. We get rid of a lot of the waste in the American health care system. It is paid on the basis of quality, not on the basis of quantity and volume. Every expert who has looked at the American health care system knows we have to move in this direction. This bill does that. It is going to reimburse doctors, hospitals, and health care providers more on the basis of quality outcomes than on the basis of the number of services provided or the quantity of services. The doughnut hole will be filled. That will increase the quality of health care for seniors. The statement that the Senator refers to from the HHS Actuary actually says that health care reform will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund for another decade. I think that improves the quality of health care. Anyone who objectively has looked at the health care reform legislation and attempted to determine one issue; that is, the life of the Medicare trust fund, has concluded that the passage of health care reform will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund for 8 to 10 years. That clearly gives seniors a little peace of mind. It is going to be there. It gives peace of mind to people who are about to be seniors, that it is going to be there. That is a major improvement in quality. It is true what the brochure says. It does increase the quality of health care. There is no doubt about it. Anyone who thinks otherwise should think through the entire legislation and be objective about it. No. 2, he refers to the assertion that it keeps Medicare strong and solvent and claims that is not true. The Actuary says that health care reform will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund for another decade. That is 100 percent refuted. Third, the Senator from Tennessee quibbles with the assertion that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries will continue to receive their guaranteed benefits. The Senator at first admits this is true, but the larger point is that health care reform reduces overpayment to Medicare Advantage plans. And why should other beneficiaries pay extra for the overpayments made to some people who are beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage plans? I have talked to a lot of executives who work for Medicare Advantage plans in the last week or so. They are interested, and they like it. They like the change in the law. Why? Because they know they are going to be reimbursed now more on the basis of quality. Medicare Advantage plans will be paid more if they can show better outcomes, higher quality, not just the standard ``you get the same rate'' benchmark compared with fee for service and so forth. A CEO of a major Medicare Advantage plan said: Senator, we think that is good policy. We like that. We are ready. We are anxious. We want to do a real good job. We think that is a good change in the law. That is going to, frankly, help seniors--higher quality, better benefits under Medicare Advantage plans. That will help. Essentially, I want to make it clear, the Senator from Tennessee complains the health care law did not correct for payment of doctors. Here is his opportunity. He could vote for this bill today. If he doesn't want doctors to take a 21-percent cut, if he doesn't want that, he should vote for this bill. This bill before us today would prevent that cut from taking place. I very much look forward to seeing the Senator from Tennessee voting for this bill so that doctors do not get a cut in their payment. That would be the right thing to do, support this bill so doctors don't get cut. Again, the Senator takes issue with the assertion that health care reform would help keep Medicare solvent. The fact is, the nonpartisan Medicare Actuary said health care reform will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund for a decade longer. I return to my first point: The health care reform law has passed. The President signed it. My gosh, why don't we work together constructively, both sides, with good points, praise, criticism, both sides of the aisle, all constructively to help the American people? Why are we here? We are here to help the American people. We are not here to score political points. We are the hired hands. We are the employees. We work for the American people. The American people want good health care reform. They want costs lower, and they want higher quality care. So let us work together to help the American people get that. That is what we should be doing here, not trying to score political points and cause disruptions for the American people for the upcoming elections in November. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

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