Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana supports part of the bill. I would just ask the Senator to broaden his mind to support all of the bill. That way, we can get this done.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there are a number of reasons to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. First, it would reverse the considered judgment of the Congress as expressed through the annual appropriations process. Congress has spoken on appropriations that are authorized and obligated, and his amendment defers that considered judgment. I will defer, frankly, to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to address these concerns in greater detail when he arrives on the floor. Second, the House of Representatives has made it clear that it views unemployment insurance and the other provisions in this bill as emergency provisions. The House has made clear that it would send the bill back to us again if we adopted the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma. That is clear. I have had conversations with the House. It is clear that it would be sent back, and that would needlessly delay much needed aid to the people receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Let's not forget that there are so many people--200,000 people, in fact--who are not receiving benefits because we let the legislation expire. It has expired. So 200,000 people today who are entitled to unemployment insurance payments are not getting them, and if we send the bill back to the House again, that is further delay. It will not be long before that number of 200,000 is going to double to 400,000. That is just playing games with the lives of unemployed Americans. Third, and perhaps most dramatically, the amendment would delegate powers to rescind $20 billion to the unelected Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This would be a breathtaking abdication of Congress's power of the purse. In the Federalist Papers, the power of the purse is described as the most singular power to protect the rights of the free people. We should not quickly surrender that power, and the Senator's amendment would surrender that power to the tune of $20 billion. The Senator's amendment would give the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a blank check. It would give him the power to cut whatever unobligated balances he should choose. This is truly a sweeping grant of power, and it is truly a dramatic surrender of that power. The Senator from Oklahoma talked about budget deficits. He and I agree. We do, as a nation, need to address the budget deficits. As a rhetorical question, he asked: When is the time to make the changes to balance the budget? The Senator asked the question as if the answer were self-evident, but the answer is not self-evident. A wise person once said: For every difficult question, there is usually a very simple answer and it is usually not true. This is an example of that maxim at work. The simple answer in this case would be to require the government to balance the budget every year, year-in and year-out. That is pretty simple. That answer, even though it sounds nice, would be wrong. The Nation should balance the budget over the course of a business cycle. We should spend in a recession and exercise more discipline when the country is very prosperous to get the budget under control. But the Nation should not attempt to balance the budget in the grips of a recession. Why is that? That is because in a recession, business slows down. People actually pay less tax revenue to the government. In a recession, spending on automatic stabilizer programs automatically increases, like unemployment benefits, food stamps, and many others. That is what should happen during a recession. To do otherwise would be economically disastrous. To try to balance the budget in the grips of a recession would mean raising taxes or cutting spending even more than is automatically occurring. That would reduce the amount of demand in the economy, and that would further slow economic growth and put even more people out of work. So most reputable economists would say you should not try to balance the budget in a recession. There is pretty broad agreement on that point among reputable economists. So that is why it does not make sense to try to balance the budget this year. Yes, we should balance the budget over the business cycle, but we should not try to raise taxes and cut spending even more to balance the budget right now. And that is why it does make sense to spend money on unemployment insurance benefits as an emergency matter. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said, spending on unemployment insurance benefits is one of the most effective things Congress can do to increase economic growth. It is one of the most effective things we can do to save and create jobs. For every dollar we spend on unemployment insurance benefits, the Congressional Budget Office says economic growth is increased by up to $1.90; it is almost a 2-to-1 return on our investment. That is a pretty sound investment. That is the economic reason why it makes sense to spend now on unemployment insurance benefits and to balance the budget over a longer period, but even more compelling is the human reason. The human reason is people such as the single dad in Missoula, MT, who depends on the extra unemployment insurance benefits to support his daughters and put food on the table. He called the Montana unemployment office, and we learned that this fellow said he honestly did not know how he was going to make ends meet without these benefits. The Senate should not be playing games with the lives of people like this man and his daughter in Missoula and all of the other men and women around the country who desperately depend on unemployment payments to make ends meet. Congress should not balance the budget on the backs of the unemployed. Last of all, we must reject amendments like these. That is why we should pass the underlying bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to table the Coburn amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:45 p.m. today the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Budget Act was not waived be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be agreed to, and the Senate then proceed to a vote on the Baucus motion to waive all applicable Budget Act points of order.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, before the Senator yields, in the form of a question, I deeply appreciate the Senator's statement. He is on the right track. I believe the Internet should be free and open, too. I was stunned by the circuit court decision. I ask the Senator if he could tell us how he thinks the FCC can remedy the situation now without legislation, and if the FCC cannot, we need legislation. But I am asking for the Senator's view again. He already stated it once. Maybe he can expand on it further.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate just rejected the previous Coburn amendment by a vote of 51 to 46. The Senate, I might say, rejected an attempt by the Senator from Oklahoma to give the Director of the Office of Management and Budget sweeping powers to cut unobligated balances by billions of dollars. The Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, explained why that would be unwise. Essentially, there are many contracts which take more than 1 year to be fulfilled--building ships, for example, aircraft carriers, and so on. It takes a good number of years to build them, and it would make no sense to rescind all those unobligated balances. The Senator from Oklahoma has two more amendments. One in particular is virtually the same amendment. It gives the Director of OMB powers to cut unobligated balances by billions of dollars, so the arguments of the Senator from Hawaii would apply there as well. So the same reasons given for opposing the Coburn amendment just a short while ago--and the one that was defeated--should be the same reasons that would apply with respect to this next Coburn amendment that we will be voting on in the not-too- distant future. The Senator from Oklahoma has another amendment which would reverse decisions of the Congress through the appropriations process, and it also would, I might say, affect some tax provisions that would be inappropriate if we were to pass them now. I would remind my colleagues if the Coburn amendment were to be adopted, there is another problem with it; that is, the delay of the extension of unemployment benefits. Because if it were to pass, it would have to go over to the House, and I am not quite sure how quickly the House would accept the Coburn amendment. They have said many times they would not accept it; that they would send it back, probably as is, without the pay-fors on the extension of unemployment benefits. So we would just be delaying unemployment benefits to people who were cut off a few days ago because of the failure of Congress to act on the extension. So I would suggest to my colleagues that the other two amendments the Senator from Oklahoma has offered are very similar to the first amendment he offered. The Senate defeated that first amendment by a vote of 51 to 46, and I suggest that these other two amendments be defeated when they are brought up because then we can give needed unemployment benefits to people who need it during this time of recession. 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, not to belabor the point, but at a hearing I held in the Finance Committee this morning, we heard from Mark Zandi, who is the chief economist and cofounder of Moody's Analytics, and he was talking about unemployment benefits. In fact, part of the hearing was to determine ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of unemployment benefits. Actually, the panel came up with a lot of very interesting ideas. Different States are, frankly, using the unemployment program to help create jobs as well as make payments. Anyway, at this hearing, Mr. Zandi volunteered, frankly, that now is not the time for extension of unemployment benefits to be paid for. He said that is self-defeating. It is unproductive. He said, now that we are in a recession, frankly, unemployment compensation benefits should not be paid for. Who is Mark Zandi? Mark Zandi is a moderate economist, very well respected by Senators on both sides of the aisle. He also was the adviser for Presidential candidate John McCain--Mark Zandi was. The point is, clearly, he is not a liberal, leftwing economist. I don't know even now if he is a moderate economist. But whatever he is-- moderate, leftwing or liberal--he is an economist, and he has worked for Presidential candidate John McCain. He volunteered today on the record at the Finance Committee hearing that it would not be wise to pay for unemployment benefits at this time because that would be self- defeating. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff be allowed floor privileges during the consideration of the pending bill: Randy Aussenberg, Claire Green, and Dustin Stevens.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are now on the temporary extension of unemployment insurance benefits. This bill will help millions of Americans who are struggling to feed their families, struggling to pay the bills. Take, for example, a single father from Missoula, MT. He has been out of work for weeks. He exhausted his State benefits, and he is now receiving Federal extended benefits. He called the Montana Unemployment Insurance Claims Processing Center, and he said if his unemployment insurance benefits are not extended, he does not know how in the world he is going to take care of his daughters. He continues to search for a job. But for now, unemployment insurance benefits are the lifeline for him and for his family. Unemployment benefits help him to pay the bills for his daughters. Unemployment benefits help the single dad from Missoula and also help millions of Americans who, through no fault of their own, have fallen victim to this Great Recession. As we meet today, benefits have lapsed for 200,000 Americans. Another 200,000 Americans could lose their benefits, too, if we do not pass this bill this week. Unemployment benefits help our unemployed neighbors. In helping our neighbors, we also help to keep open the neighborhood grocery store and the neighborhood gas station. In helping our unemployed neighbors, we also help to keep houses out of foreclosure. In helping our unemployed neighbors, we also help the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that extending additional unemployment benefits would have one of the largest effects on economic output and unemployment per dollar spent of any option. The CBO chart behind me tells us how effective increasing aid to the unemployed can be. The CBO analyzed the effectiveness of a number of job creation proposals. For each policy, the CBO estimated the number of jobs created for each dollar of budgetary cost. You will see on the chart behind me, there are 11 policies the CBO analyzed. Increasing aid to the unemployed is ranked first. It is No. 1, at the top of the chart. You can see it with the blue line. Among all these policies, increasing aid to the unemployed is the most effective. The Congressional Budget Office says it will create the most jobs per dollar of budgetary cost. It is the most efficient and creates more jobs. Other policy options are much less cost effective. CBO also says each dollar spent increasing aid to the unemployed could increase the gross domestic product by up to $1.90. That is almost double per dollar spent. Why is increasing aid to the unemployed so effective? Let's ask ourselves that question. Well, households receiving unemployment benefits spend their benefits right away. They have to. They are spent. That spurs demand for goods, demand for services. That boosts production, and that leads businesses to hire more employees. Unemployment benefits are essential to bridging the gap between losing one job and finding another, and it has become increasingly difficult to find that next job. In February, there were 2.7 million job openings. In the same month, there were 15 million Americans out of work. That means there are about five and one-half job seekers for every job opening--over five. It is no wonder it is hard for people who are unemployed to find jobs. This chart behind me tells the story. Prior to the Great Recession, there were fewer than two job seekers for every open position. Now there are five and one-half. Let me repeat that. Prior to the Great Recession--you can see it on this chart with the red line over to the left--there were fewer than two job seekers for every job that was open, every position that was open. That was back in December 2007. Now, if you look at the red line that goes to the right, there are five and one-half. It is important we extend unemployment benefits. We need to bridge that gap between jobs. Getting unemployment benefits is not living high on the hog by any stretch of the imagination. The average unemployment benefit is $335 a week. The average cost of a loaf of bread is $2.97. The average cost of a gallon of milk is $2.72. Diapers for just one baby can cost up to $85 a month. These days, $335 only stretches so far. We need to keep our unemployed neighbors from falling into poverty. We need to figure out how best to create new jobs for unemployed workers. One way we could do that is to help foster job growth, and that is by using the unemployment insurance program to create the right conditions for job creation. In that vein, I am holding a hearing in the Finance Committee tomorrow to explore ways to use the unemployment insurance system to help Americans get back to work. Let's reform this system. Let's modernize it. Let's make it work better. States and experts have great ideas for how we can improve the unemployment insurance system. They have ideas about how it can save and create more jobs. For example, some States are creating new jobs through subsidy programs. Montana has a job subsidy program and has put hundreds of people back to work. Using funds from the Recovery Act, this program helps employers to pay for the cost of creating new jobs. Across the country, thousands of people are benefiting from job subsidy programs. But right now, it is essential we pass a temporary extension of unemployment benefits. It is essential we help Americans put food on the table. It is essential to pay the bills while they continue to look for work. It is essential for people such as Jeremy from Flathead County, MT. Jeremy is a wildland firefighter. He is receiving unemployment benefits for the first time in his life. Fighting wildfires is seasonal work. Typically, Jeremy can find another job during the off-season, but this year he has been unable to find employment. Jeremy's benefits lapsed on February 28. That is when Congress failed to extend unemployment benefits. Jeremy has been left hanging. It is not right to leave Americans in this position. So let us extend unemployment insurance benefits for Jeremy the firefighter. Let us extend this vital lifeline for this single dad from Missoula and for his daughters who depend on him. Let us enact this temporary extension of unemployment insurance without delay. 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 send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on March 10, the Senate passed a bill to extend unemployment insurance and a number of other provisions through the end of this year. We are currently working with the House of Representatives to agree on a package of offsets for a portion of that bill. In the meantime, Congress needs to act on the pending bill to ensure that Americans can receive their much needed unemployment benefits. This bill would extend benefits to the end of this month. My amendment, which I just offered, will extend the programs in the bill before us today for one more month, until the end of May. Why? What is the purpose of this? The answer is that this further short-term extension would ensure that Congress has enough time to resolve its differences over the long-term extension. It is now April 13. The end of the month is not too long away. It is not sufficient time to work out an agreement with the relevant Senators on both sides of the aisle as to how to pay for this and what portions of the unemployment/COBRA bill. It is going to take a little more time than 2 weeks. This amendment will extend the unemployment benefits and all the provisions in the current bill for one more month to give us time to work out a solid understanding so that in the end we can pass the bigger, longer term extenders bill, which would extend the tax provisions, as well as the SGR, COBRA, UI, FMAP, and other provisions until the end of the calendar year. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are starting to come out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. A little more than a year ago, in the fourth quarter of 2008, the economy declined at an annual rate of more than 5 percent. A year later, in the fourth quarter of 2009, the gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of nearly 6 percent. Last month, manufacturing activity increased at the fastest rate in 5\1/2\ years. Last month, the service sector expanded at the fastest rate in more than 2 years. And last month, the economy added 162,000 jobs. The economy has taken its first steps toward recovery. The economists say that part of the reason why the economy is starting to come back is what we did here. One of the first things that President Obama did in office was to press for bold action to prevent another Great Depression. And one of the first bills that Congress enacted in the new administration was the Recovery Act. The economists say that it's working. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that in the fourth quarter of 2009, the Recovery Act increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by between 1.4 million and 3 million. And CBO also estimates that real gross domestic product was 1\1/2\ percent to 3\1/2\ percent higher in the fourth quarter than it would have been without the Recovery Act. So there are some encouraging signs. But we still face major challenges in the economy. There is still work to do creating jobs. The unemployment rate stands at 9.7 percent. Almost a tenth of the labor force is unemployed. More than 15 million Americans are out of work. First-time claims for unemployment benefits rose the week before last. Businesses are still laying off workers. And companies remain tentative in hiring new employees. The economists call unemployment ``a lagging indicator.'' Employers can be slow to rehire, when business begins to pick up. The Congressional Budget Office expects the unemployment rate to remain above 8 percent until 2012. CBO does not expect unemployment to reach what they call its ``natural state'' of 5 percent until 2016. CBO does not expect that the gap between actual output and potential output will close until the end of 2014. That is why we need to pass a temporary extension of unemployment benefits. Jobless benefits are a powerful way to bolster demand during times of high unemployment. Households receiving unemployment benefits spend their additional benefits right away. That spurs demand for goods and services. That boosts production. And that leads businesses to hire more employees. The Congressional Budget Office looked at the different ways that we can help the economy to grow, and CBO says that extending additional unemployment benefits would have one of the largest effects on economic output and employment per dollar spent. Because benefits are often spent quickly, extending unemployment benefits will provide a timely boost to the economy. A temporary extension will also provide immediate assistance to millions of Americans struggling to feed their families and pay the bills. According to officials in my home State of Montana, if we do not pass this extension, then thousands of Montanans could lose their unemployment benefits and will have significant difficulties. That is a significant number when you consider the population of my State. An extension of unemployment benefits is essential, but it is not enough. We must also consider unemployment insurance reforms that could help to create more jobs. That is why I plan to hold a hearing in the Finance Committee on Wednesday to explore ways to use unemployment insurance to help Americans to get back to work. States and experts have ideas for how we can improve the unemployment insurance system. They have ideas about how it can save and create more jobs. Wednesday, the Finance Committee will discuss possible commonsense innovations with a panel of experts, while also addressing the challenge of State solvency. But right now, it is essential that we pass a temporary extension of unemployment benefits. An extension will help workers to get by as they search or retrain for a new job. And an extension will also provide a much-needed boost to the economy. So, let us help the families who are struggling in this difficult economic time. Let us help to spur demand and economic growth. Let us vote to invoke cloture on this vital legislation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I want colleagues and those who read the Record to know that the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public a technical explanation of the revenue provisions of the Health and Education Reconciliation Act, as amended, in combination with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This technical explanation provides information on the committees' understanding and legislative intent behind those provisions. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web site at www.jct.gov under the title ``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the `Reconciliation Act of 2010,' as Amended, in Combination with the `Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,' '' and is listed as document number JCX--18--10.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we just now saw this amendment. We have to look at it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, as I said, we were just handed this amendment. We have now examined it. This is an amendment that is related to medical malpractice and tort reform. There are a lot of provisions already in the bill which cover this subject. However, the main point of this amendment is not the jurisdiction of the relevant committees. I raise a point of order that the Ensign amendment would violate section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this is a health care reform----

Mr. BAUCUS. This is a health care reform bill, and we should keep all amendments to that subject. When we were sworn in as Senators, we took an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States, which clearly includes the second amendment. All of us have a strong belief in the second amendment to our Constitution. But whatever you think about second amendment rights and the application of the second amendment, whatever you think about veterans and the relationship to questions of competency, I think we all should agree that neither what anybody thinks about second amendment rights or what veterans' relations should be to that should be in this bill. This is a health care bill. I note this bill already explicitly protects the rights of gun owners. Therefore, because this amendment is nearly entirely composed of matter outside the jurisdiction of the reconciled committees, I raise a point of order that the Coburn amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act.