Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, saying it doesn't make it so. It is not at all as it has been described. We very much in this country have to work to control health care costs. Doctors and hospitals--especially doctors--want to practice evidence-based medicine, even more than they do now. They want the evidence. They want the information. They want to know which procedures and medicine, et cetera, work better than others. These commissions will help them get that information. Then, they make the decisions alone, independently, with their patients as to what to do. But they want more evidence so they can make more evidence-based decisions. Second, I am not going to sugarcoat it. This independent advisory board is very important to help improve quality of care and to control costs. It does have some teeth in it. But I say to my colleagues, if we really want to do something about health care costs in this country, this is a start. CBO says this does score positively. I, therefore, move to table the motion, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, since 1965, Medicare has provided security and health to millions of seniors. Along with Social Security, it is one of the two most successful and best social programs this country has adopted. Now, after 45 years of success, what does this amendment seek to do? It seeks to undermine the foundation of our social insurance program. It is a two-tiered system. The wealthy can take care of themselves. Then, when they leave Medicare, it leaves a second-class seniors health care system remaining in Medicare. It is unthinkable, frankly, that we would have a two-tiered system for our seniors under Medicare. I therefore move to table the Bunning amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I object. I object.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there is discussion in progress on how to deal with extenders that is ongoing with the majority leader and minority leader. In fact, the minority leader referred to it when he spoke just about a half hour ago. I think it is best to continue that process. More important, I think, this amendment is a killer amendment designed to send the reconciliation bill back to the House and let it go all over again. It is paid for by repealing some stimulus dollars. It is paid for by cutting back on the fundability of the EITC--clearly nonstarters. I might say, too, there are other pay-fors in here that are not going to fly, frankly. I raise a point of order the Grassley amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. BAUCUS. I raise the point of order that the Grassley amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, no matter where you are on the issue of marriage, no matter where you are on the issue of DC home rule, we ought to be able to agree that neither issue has anything to do with this bill, neither one. Therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment is not germane and thus violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the goal of health care reform is to increase coverage so more people have health insurance. That is the goal of health care reform. What does this amendment do? It goes in the opposite direction. Compared with the bill that was just signed by the President, this amendment will cause many more people to lose health insurance. Why? Because it lowers the income threshold from 8 percent down to 5 percent. That is going to mean fewer Americans get tax credits to pay for health insurance. That means fewer Americans are going to have health insurance compared with current law. That is the main reason we should vote against this amendment, because it expands the number of people who are uninsured rather than expand the number of people who would be insured. The provision the Senator talks about, frankly, was changed under current law because with health insurance people have less need for that deduction and less need for catastrophic coverage because health insurance will not pay for it.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would remind my colleagues that the Hutchison amendment uses as its offset rolling back the Recovery Act; that is, rolling back stimulus funds. That is taking stimulus funds to permanently pay for the marriage penalty relief as well as sales tax relief. With unemployment as high as it is, hovering around 10 percent, it makes no sense to cut back stimulus dollars. Stimulus dollars are a proven job creator. All mainstream economists and the CBO tell us that. I think we should continue to create jobs by using the stimulus dollars. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to not support the Hutchison amendment. In addition to that, there are funds not within the jurisdiction of reconciled committees. For that reason, I raise a point of order that the Hutchison amendment violates section 313(B)1(C) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I strongly support--I think every Member in this Chamber does--prevention and treatment of breast cancer and women's health generally. And the bill the President signed Tuesday makes great strides to that end. For example, it prohibits gender rating and eliminates the ability of insurers to limit coverage based on preexisting conditions. In addition to the preventive services available to everyone in the exchange, the health reform bill ensures that women have access to the unique preventive services they need, such as wellness exams. I might also add that the amendment further drains dollars from the highway trust fund. We don't want to go in that direction. Therefore, Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 24, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Committee on Taxation document entitled ``Estimated Revenue Effects of the Revenue Provisions contained in the `American Workers, State and Business Relief Act of 2010,' as passed by the Senate on March 10, 2010'' be printed in the Record. In addition, please let the Record reflect that the document entitled ``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions Contained in the `American Workers, State and Business Relief Act of 2010,' as passed by the Senate on March 10, 2010'' can be found on the Joint Committee on Taxation Web site at http://jct.gov/publications .html?func=startdown&id=3664. This document is a contemporary explanation of the legislation that reflects the intentions of the Senate and its understanding of the legislative text.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I recognize the achievements of an outstanding college basketball team from my home State of Montana. High school and college sports are a way of life across Big Sky country. On cold winter nights in towns across the state from Libby to Lewistown and from Fort Benton to Fairview folks fill up gymnasiums to cheer on their favorite teams. The University of Montana Grizzlies have legions of devoted fans around Montana, and pack thousands into the Adams Center on the UM campus in Missoula for home games. This season's edition of the Griz has thrilled fans throughout, and the team is now headed for the NCAA Tournament after a thrilling come from behind win to capture the Big Sky Conference Championship on March 10. The Grizzlies showed the heart, determination, and hustle Montana athletes are known for, in clawing their way back from a 22-point deficit to defeat Weber State University on the Wildcats' home court. Anthony Johnson turned in a performance for the ages and one that will be remembered for decades across Montana. The senior guard poured in a school and Big Sky tournament record 42 points including the winning shot. To illustrate how amazing this performance was Johnson by himself outscored Weber State 34 to 25 in the second half. In the end it all came down to teamwork as guard Will Cherry made a stellar defensive play to stop Weber State on their last possession, and big men Derek Selvig and Brian Qvale contributed with big blocks and rebounds throughout. This was yet another illustration of how the team has pulled together all year to get big wins no matter the adversity they faced. The Griz now move on to face the University of New Mexico Lobos in the NCAA Tournament. The Griz have had tournament success in the past, winning a first round game in 2006 despite being a heavy underdog and having a memorable run in the 1975 tournament as well. In 1975 another tremendous performance was turned in by a Grizzly as guard Eric Hays nearly led the team to an upset of defending national champion UCLA in the second round. Hays played the game of his life--he scored 32 points to keep the Griz in the game, although they ultimately lost 67-64. Griz fans still remember Hays' amazing performance 35 years later. Eric went on to coach basketball at Hellgate High School in Missoula where he won over 350 games. I would like to commend Wayne Tinkle, the coach of the team, athletic director Jim O'Day, and University of Montana president George Dennison for their leadership and vision in making the Grizzly athletic programs successful and teaching many dedicated student athletes life lessons as well as those on the playing fields and courts. These student athletes deserve our recognition for all the hard work they put in throughout the year. I know that the Griz will represent the state of Montana well in the NCAA tournament and give it their all. I along with many other Griz fans across the country will be watching and cheering a famous line from the school's fight song--``Up with Montana, boys, down with the foe!''

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate returns today to creating jobs. Today, we return to the HIRE Act. This bill provides incentives for businesses to hire new employees, and it encourages businesses to invest in building their operations. It has a payroll tax exemption for newly hired employees. It provides continued funding for the vital Federal highway program. It expands the successful Build America Bonds program. And it extends the tax incentive in section 179 of the Tax Code, which allows small businesses to expense capital expenditures, instead of depreciating them over time. These proposals will help to get Americans back to work. The Senate passed the HIRE Act last month, with strong bipartisan support. Since then, the House of Representatives considered the legislation and returned it to the Senate with some modifications. The HIRE Act includes the Schumer-Hatch payroll tax exemption for newly hired employees. This is a straightforward tax cut: If you hire a person who has been unemployed for 60 days, you don't have to pay your share of the Social Security payroll taxes for that person for the rest of the year. And if you keep the newly hired person employed for 1 year, you get an additional income tax credit. The House modified the Schumer-Hatch payroll tax exemption to allow employers to receive the exemption if they pay the railroad retirement tax instead of the Social Security payroll tax. The House also included modifications to ease implementation of the payroll tax exemption. This payroll tax exemption provides a simple and immediate tax incentive for businesses to employ new workers, right away. A business can use the cash that it saves from the payroll tax cut to help pay the wages of the new employee. Or it can invest in equipment. Either way, the incentive will help boost hiring and help businesses. The HIRE Act will also create jobs in the transportation sector, by extending the 2009 highway funding level through the end of 2010. Highway construction plays a vital role in our economy. The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in Federal highway spending--when coupled with the State or local matching share-- creates or sustains 34,500 jobs. These are jobs in construction, engineering, manufacturing and other sectors hard-hit by the recession. The HIRE Act keeps the program working. The HIRE Act also expands the successful Build America Bonds program. Last month, Treasury Secretary Geithner testified before the Finance Committee that the Build America Bonds program is the most successful stimulus program based on jobs per dollar. And the HIRE Act extends the enhanced expensing provision in section 179 of the Tax Code. This valuable tax incentive allows small business taxpayers to write off up to $250,000 of certain capital expenditures in 2010, instead of depreciating those costs over time. This helps small businesses to pay less in taxes now, and thus meet their needs for cash in this difficult time. The American economy has lost more than 7 million jobs. And the unemployment rate is near 10 percent. We need to help people to get jobs. We need to do more to help businesses to hire more workers. The HIRE Act does just that. And so, let us help America's businesses to create more jobs. Let us complete our work on this commonsense legislation. And let us send the HIRE Act to the President, so that this law can start creating jobs right away. PEOs

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator from Florida is correct.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Community Flood Protection Act of 2010. We have all seen, and many of us have experienced firsthand, the devastation that a flood can bring to any community. This devastation is experienced equally, whether your home is in an area that is high or low hazard, rural or urban, wealthy or poor. Flood control is a multi- pronged effort involving structural and non-structural flood control measures, hazard mitigation, emergency planning, and insurance. Our Nation has a myriad of programs designed to address flood hazards. FEMA produces flood maps to define the risk and operates hazard mitigation programs to reduce risk. The National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, provides flood insurance to property owners in a mapped risk area. The Army Corps of Engineers designs and constructs flood control projects. This hodgepodge of responsibilities has always been a challenge for the U.S., and it continues to be one today. Nowhere is this challenge more evident than in the process of FEMA's map modernization program, the Corps' levee certification responsibilities, and NFIP program requirements. This issue has lingered around the edges for years, and its impact is now being felt in an enormous way in Montana where communities struggling to navigate the maze of what seems to be an overwhelming Federal bureaucracy are incredibly frustrated. Let me begin by saying that it is important that we recognize the risks we face before we make snap judgments about whether preventive action should or shouldn't be taken. Specifically, it is a good idea for FEMA to update our Nation's flood maps so that we can be honest with ourselves about the risks we face. However, that process, must be transparent and it must recognize the differences between Sacramento, CA, and Saco, MT. It can be overwhelming for a small community in Montana to participate in this process. That is why I have written to FEMA Director Craig Fugate asking him to consider the needs of small, rural communities as the Agency progresses with its map modernization program. Once flood hazards are accurately mapped, communities must work to ensure that their flood control structures, if they have them, are up to par and can actually provide protection for the hazards they face. Without a levee ``certification'' by a professional engineer, those portions of a community located behind the levee, believing for years that they had adequate flood protection, are suddenly faced with a map that depicts them as in the floodplain, unprotected, required to purchase flood insurance. It seems like it would be a simple process to get a levee certification. Traditionally, the Army Corps has performed this work. However, in 2008 the Army Corps of Engineers established a policy that it would no longer perform levee certifications on non-Federally operated levees. This policy has left communities like Great Falls, Montana high and dry when it comes to a certification process. I wrote to the Corps of Engineers on February 18, 2010, asking the Agency to re-evaluate this policy. I hope that the Corps will change their policy. But, Montana cannot wait for that to happen. Great Falls, Vaughn, Miles City, Glendive, Saco, Havre, Forsyth, Malta, Glasgow and others cannot wait for the Corps deliberations. That is why I am introducing legislation today that will give the Corps direct authority to perform levee certifications. In addition, my bill includes special provisions for small communities and for those levee districts that are operated by a volunteer staff, allowing the Corps to perform these certifications at 100 percent Federal cost. This bill is one step in what will be a long process for all of us as we update and upgrade our knowledge of the risks posed by flooding, our current level of protection, and additional steps we need to take to ensure that lives and property are not unnecessarily lost. In the process of that upgrade, we cannot lose sight of the impact of this process and these decisions on our local communities. We don't want the cost of staying in the NFIP to rise above the point where small communities can participate. We don't want a burdensome Federal bureaucracy to make it impossible for people to make good decisions about their own safety and that of their community. In these economic times, rural communities are struggling to come up with enough money just to keep afloat, and a hefty certification fee can be an undue burden. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the aviation trust fund reauthorization. I support the bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it as well. In addition to discussing the bill's specifics, however, I would like to give some perspective about our current aviation system. Our current system relies on the use of radio detection and ranging--more commonly known as radar. Radar was once a tremendous leap forward; that is, it was a tremendous leap forward right before World War II. Let me take a couple moments to retrace the history of air traffic control, starting before radar. Before radar, pilots followed prominent landmarks, such as rivers or railway lines, to navigate their routes. Naturally, bad weather and darkness made flying especially hazardous. In the 1920s, commercial night flights relied on something called the transcontinental lighted airway. That is an impressive-sounding name. What was it? It was just a series of bonfires. Local farmers maintained those bonfires across many parts of America. More developed areas could use gas-fueled beacons. In 1922, the first civil aviation midair collision happened in France. That collision created awareness of the need for some sort of air traffic control. I use the word ``control'' loosely. It took more than another 10 years before this country's air traffic control center opened up in Newark, NJ, in 1935. The following year, additional centers went up in Chicago and Cleveland. Elsewhere, the system still consisted of flagmen standing on the airfield, waving flags to communicate with pilots. But all that changed with the establishment of radar shortly before World War II. During the war, radar gave the British an extraordinarily positive tool--a defensive tool--for repelling Luftwaffe attacks. Soon, the Allied Powers were using it for offensive purposes. Radar provided air cover at Anzio and Normandy. It enabled air raids deep into Germany, despite overcast skies, and it helped us disrupt Axis Power shipping routes and attack the Japanese Navy. We spent more during the war on radar than on the atomic bomb. No less an authority than German Grand Admiral Doenitz, when captured at the end of the war, said this: We fell behind technically. We were unable to build shortwave RADAR to compete with Anglo-American improved radio location equipment. Following the war, radar was adapted for civil aviation. Ultimately, it spawned the tremendous rise of the commercial air travel industry. Incidentally, this led Congress to properly fund aviation. In 1970, we established the airport and airways trust fund--commonly referred to as the aviation trust fund--and that is what we seek to reauthorize today. The aviation trust fund built on the success of the highway trust fund. The idea behind the aviation trust fund was for the system's users to pay for its upkeep. Generally speaking, the aviation trust fund has managed to do that, to finance the needs of the air-traveling public. The aviation trust fund receives about $12 billion a year in user- based taxes. Much of this funding goes into the Airport Improvement Program. The airports in my State of Montana rely heavily on it. The Department of Transportation has estimated that every billion dollars spent in Airport Improvement Program funding creates or sustains more than 20,000 jobs throughout the U.S. economy. But now we need to do more. Our system needs modernization. We need to improve safety and efficiency. We need to enable direct routes, rather than flying along zigzag flight corridors, as we have since the transcontinental lighted airway, and we need to keep up with air traffic growth. Look at how bogged down our New York-New Jersey airspace already is. We need Continuous Descent Arrival to reduce the amount of fuel that aircraft burn. This reduces both cost and air emissions. During a recent test in Atlanta, Delta Airlines saved as many as 60 gallons of fuel and cut carbon emissions by up to 1,250 pounds for every flight. The Senate bill would fund the aviation trust fund for a little more than 3 years. Importantly, the bill would provide needed funds for the establishment of NextGen. NextGen is the Federal Aviation Administration's plan to use satellite-based technology in order to modernize the Nation's air traffic system. We need to invest in it now. Our 2010 trust fund, established in the early 1970s, is still funding radar. That is a technology that predates the Second World War. Some radar beacons are still located on the same sites as those early bonfire beacons. NextGen, however, will enable planes to use global positioning systems to continuously transmit location, speed, and altitude to other planes, pilots, and controllers within 150 miles. That will improve efficiency and safety. This is a sea change. A number of other countries have already invested in satellite tracking technology. The United States is behind the curve, and we can change that with the passage of this bill. How do we pay for NextGen? The Finance Committee proposes the following: First, we set the tax for general aviation jet fuel at 36 cents a gallon. That is up from the current 21.9 cents a gallon. The general aviation community agreed to this proposal. Second, we treat fractional aircraft; that is, partially owned planes; as general aviation rather than commercial carriers. Owners of fractional aircraft believe this change will preserve their ability to fly and land in Europe. All told, we raise nearly an additional $180 million to get NextGen started. More will be needed, especially given the rapid state of technological change. I know that both the Finance Committee and the Commerce Committee plan to monitor NextGen's implementation. We will have a pretty good debate this week. I look forward to it. But first I wish to thank my colleagues, especially Senator Rockefeller, for his willingness to seek common ground. We have worked together on this for a long time--actually, for several years. In fact, we had an agreement a couple years ago, but due to an extraneous event, it was unable to be realized. Senator Rockefeller has written a very strong FAA reauthorization. I especially appreciate his continued support for the Essential Air Service Program, a program that matters a great deal to my constituents in eastern Montana. So let us adopt NextGen to improve safety and improve efficiency. Let us reauthorize the aviation trust fund. It is time to bring American air travel into the 21st century. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, on behalf of the chairmen of the Rules and Budget committees, I call up my amendment No. 3429.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. The first amendment is a simple attempt to improve the availability of budgetary information on what Congress does. This amendment would require the Secretary of the Senate to create a new Web site that clearly provides information from the Congressional Budget Office on the legislative actions of the Senate. This is a side-by-side amendment to the Coburn amendment on the same subject. I believe Senator Coburn has the same purpose in mind, but we have drafted this side-by-side amendment to avoid new burdens on the Congressional Budget Office. The Rules Committee and Budget Committee worked together with us on the drafting of this amendment to assure that it would work. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.