Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 426, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we are now on a bill to extend tax cuts, to extend certain payments for unemployment insurance, COBRA subsidies, and so forth. This is a jobs bill. This is a safety net extenders bill. This is not a health care bill. Four Senators just spoke--I think there were four; six of them altogether--basically being very critical of the health care reform bill we passed in the Senate, very critical of the President's effort to pass health care reform. I think some of the misstatements made deserve a response. The Senator from Mississippi called the Senate health care bill a massive tax increase. The Senator is simply mistaken. That is not correct. The health care reform legislation is, in fact, a major tax cut. It is not a tax increase but a major tax cut. The Senate passed a health care bill that provided more than $400 billion in tax cuts for Americans to buy health insurance--$400 billion in tax cuts. Those were tax credits given to Americans to buy health insurance. That sounds like a tax cut to me. This is the largest tax cut for individuals since the record tax cuts of 2001. The junior Senator from Wyoming said: We need to stop and start all over again. Anyone who has paid any attention to the debate on health care reform for any amount of time knows the opportunity to pass health care reform comes around about once in a generation. It doesn't happen all the time. In fact, I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who first attempted to pass health care reform. So it has been 67 years. We are on the cusp of passing major health care reform now. We all know health care reform must pass. Why? To address the Draconian cost increases that families, companies, and budgets are facing; to reform the health care insurance industry. If we do not do it now, don't reform health care now, believe me, this country is going to be digging itself into a pretty deep hole. This comes along once in a lifetime. So a call to stop and start over again in reality is a call to kill health care reform. That is what that is. When you hear anybody saying let's stop and start all over again, really what they want to do is kill health care reform. That is the whole point of it all. Stopping and starting all over again sounds to me like nobody has paid any attention to where we are. This Senator does not like to be partisan at all. Most Senators don't like to be partisan. But the fact is, the other side of the aisle never presented a comprehensive health care reform proposal. There was never an alternative. In my judgment, it was a disservice to the American people that the other side did not present anything that could be called comprehensive health care reform so we could debate it. The proposal offered by the Finance Committee and offered by the HELP committee, merged together into one, that was basically the Democratic version. There was an opportunity to debate that as well as debate the one offered by the other side, but they didn't ever offer one. Instead, what did they do? They just picked and tried to find holes and criticize. It is easy to criticize; anything can be criticized. If you are halfway intelligent you can make any criticism that is inaccurate sound pretty good. That is basically what has happened, a constant barrage of criticism and very little good-faith effort to try to find a common solution. There was an effort a while ago when Senator Grassley and I and Senator Enzi, Senator Conrad, and Senator Snowe worked hard to try to find a solution. We worked for days and months. Frankly, to be totally candid about it, the other side decided it was better politics just to kill health care reform than it was to try to find a solution. That is why the three Republicans I was working with, frankly, had to withdraw. They withdrew because there was so much political pressure on them from their leadership to kill the bill. Senator Snowe stayed with us for a while, but even--I don't want to put words in Senator Snowe's mouth or try to speak for her. She can decide what she wants. But even she came under tremendous pressure not to find a solution. Any effort to start all over again is really a very thinly veiled call to kill health care reform. Instead of passing health care reform, the Senator from Wyoming said he wanted a series of ideas. One idea he talked about is to allow people to buy health insurance across State lines. I am sure he did not really mean this, but if he thinks that is the sole solution to health care reform, I think most Americans who were denied coverage because of preexisting conditions, who face all kinds of problems from the health insurance industry, wouldn't agree with that. But, nevertheless, I might say the bill that passed the Senate does allow insurance to be sold across State lines--maybe not quite as freely as the opponents on the other side of the aisle would prefer, but we do allow insurance to be sold across State lines. Why? Because we want competition. We want people to choose. People should have the ability to choose what health insurance plan they want. There is very little competition now. In many States maybe one or two companies dominate. There is very little competition. That is not right. Allowing insurance companies to sell across State lines will allow more competition, allow people a better choice, but it should be done in a way that is fair to the American public. One of the big problems is, if companies are allowed to sell across State lines willy-nilly without some protections, I will tell you what is going to happen. It is going to be a race to the bottom. Insurance companies are going to race to find the State that has the lowest standards, and that is where they will set up and then they will sell across the country. What that means is somebody who resides in a State that has pretty high standards but finds the only policies being sold are those sold by companies registered in a State with low standards is going to have very low-quality insurance. What we want is fairness, evenhandedness, some balance so people are able to buy insurance freely and have their choice to buy insurance; which is to say, the basic approach the majority has taken in health insurance reform is to basically maintain the current system. Today we spend about $2.4 or $2.5 trillion on health care. That is a total figure--about half public and half private. The half public is Medicaid, Medicare, Children's Health Insurance. That is about half. The other half is private; it is commercial insurance. That is the way it should be. That is our American way. We are not Canada. We are not Great Britain. We are not Sweden. We are not Japan. We are America. In America we have a system which is basically 50-50: half public, half private. This legislation before us today maintains that allocation, maintains that ability for people to continue to buy private insurance. It maintains the ability for people to have more--in fact more choices, more competition, more opportunity to buy insurance, especially when the exchanges are set up. I say to my good friend from Wyoming, who says: Gee, here is an idea. Why not let people buy insurance across State lines, we do that. We do allow people to buy across State lines, but that is after we have a level playing field. We want to make sure insurance sold across State lines is quality insurance, not insurance that is of very low quality. We also allow in the major legislation insurance to be sold across State lines when the exchange is set up. The Senators from Wyoming and Oklahoma talked about something else. They talked about tort reform. I must say, when the Senator from Oklahoma, one who talks about tort reform, speaks--first of all, he said our bill ignores tort reform. That is not true. Our legislation does not ignore tort reform. Frankly, we begin with a series of steps. We begin to build, State-by-State, programs to try out some of the best ideas to address lawsuit reform in which, basically, States have the ability to try different measures. They can try courts, health courts; they can try something similar to workers comp or they can set up a system similar to tort reform--lawsuit reform in the State of Michigan. It is called ``sorry works.'' If it is a bad outcome, the hospital, the physician goes to the patient and says: I am sorry, it didn't work out. They have a long talk about it and negotiate out a settlement. If they reach an agreement, that is great. If they do not, then the statements used by the physician, if there is a subsequent suit, cannot be used. We do begin to go down the road of lawsuit reform in the major bill. The Senator also talked about people joining to buy insurance in associations. I might say, again, our bill allows that. Our bill allows that and much more. When you hear people talk about the bill to join in association health plans, it is important to also point out to people that is quite restrictive. First of all, it is restrictive in the sense it is available only to members of that association. It is not available to other people. I think we want to make sure we set up pooling arrangements so all Americans have the availability of pooling. In addition, who joins associations? The companies join them. What about the employees? The employees--the companies might be members of an association, pooling, but it might not be in the best interests of or what the employees want. It really cuts out employees. The pooling we allow in our underlying bill is real pooling. It is honest-to-goodness pooling. Frankly, the real pooling will occur when the exchange is set up because then companies will be able to sell across lines in the insurance exchange and also where a lot more people will be involved, which will enable us to have the same benefits of pooling. I might also say a point about the exchange. Right now, if you get on your computer, if you want to find the lowest airline ticket, what do you do? You go to Orbitz or you go to Expedia; you go to Travelocity, to these various outfits, and you look around and say: Oh, I like this fare. Oh, no, wrong day. So you can shop online. That is basically what we are talking about in the insurance exchange. Just like Orbitz, just like Expedia, you get online and you can shop and you can find the right fares. It is going to be easier because we are requiring insurance forms to be standardized and much more simplified so people can understand the choices they are pursuing and make the choices they want. I just want to make clear the Senate knows when the Senator from Wyoming talks about associations, he is really talking about pooling. Our underlying bill has pooling, and I think even better pooling. The Senators from Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Wyoming expressed shock at the prospect of health care being addressed in a budget reconciliation process. The Senator from Oklahoma said the reconciliation process means ``ramming it through.'' What my colleagues fail to remember is that this body has used budget reconciliation 22 times. This is nothing new. And 17 of those times it was the Republican Party, controlling either the Congress or the White House, when reconciliation was used. Most of the time that we had reconciliation bills they included measures on health care. Health care is no stranger to the reconciliation process. I want to make that clear. Health care is no stranger to the reconciliation process. I am not talking about just minor provisions in health care. The budget reconciliation was the process by which the Republican Senate passed the COBRA health insurance bill--under reconciliation, the Republican Senate passed it. COBRA, after all, stands for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986. The Senate used that process, reconciliation, to create the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997. That was a very significant health insurance program created under reconciliation in 1997. So health care is no stranger to this reconciliation process. It is actually the exception when Congress has done health care reform outside of reconciliation. That is the real truth. The Senator from Arizona questioned the constitutionality of requiring people to buy insurance. My colleagues want health care to be thrown out if these charges are true. The fact is, the vast majority of scholars who have considered the matter said the commerce clause and revenue clause in the Constitution give the Congress ample authority to address the responsibility of people to buy insurance. This has been addressed many times. Certainly, somebody can trot out a law professor or somebody who can make a contrary claim. But our committee, the Finance Committee, looked at this issue very thoroughly. We searched out lots of law professors. We had to find out if this is constitutional, and the weight, the far weight of constitutional scholarship is, in fact, this is constitutional. So when the Senators stand here and say it is not constitutional-- they are entitled to their own opinions. That is fair. That is why we debate. But I might say, when one studies literature and quizzes constitutional law professors, the vast majority, the balance of opinion is that this is constitutional. I might add that most States require people to buy auto insurance right now. Is that unconstitutional? Is that unconstitutional for the State to require purchase of liability insurance if you want to operate a car? I don't think so. The Senator from Wyoming said our bill would bend the cost curve. He said the bill would raise health care costs. That is not true. Flatly, simply, categorically, positively not true. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the underlying bill would reduce the Federal Government's commitment to health care in the second 10 years-- reduce. That does not sound like costs are going up. Our bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would also cut costs for the taxpayer. First of all, the CBO said the legislation, the health care legislation reduced the deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years and between $630 billion and $1.3 trillion in the second 10 years. That is a cut--cut deficits. Let me just make a point there. We have large budget deficits, as the rest of the world knows. They have to be reduced. Health care reform is a step toward reducing our fiscal deficits. It is a very significant step. As Peter Orszag said, the once head of the Congressional Budget Office, now head of OMB: The path to reducing our fiscal deficit situation is through health care reform. We need health care reform to get budgets--family, company, and government--under control. To repeat, our bill, according to CBO, would cut costs to taxpayers, reduce deficits by $132 billion the first 10, the point I just made, and then about $1 trillion in the next 10. To summarize, our bill provides real cost control. That is what is needed, real cost control. Our bill reforms incentives for the Tax Code to encourage smarter shopping for health insurance. I might say, if this side over here wants us to stop and start all over again, what is going to happen? It means all those people today-- and there are millions of them--who are denied quality health insurance because of a preexisting condition will be unable to get good health insurance. Basically, those who say, stop and start over are saying: We want you who cannot get good health insurance because of a preexisting condition to continue to not get good health insurance because of a preexisting condition. That is basically what they are saying. That is not right. That is not right at all. It reminds me, too, of a fellow in my home State of Montana. A few years ago, I was talking to him and he said: Max, I feel just awful. I have a small construction firm, I have six or seven people in my firm, and there is one person who has been with me for 20 or 30 years. My insurance company informed me my premiums are now going to go up 40 percent. I asked why. Because one of your long-time employees has a preexisting condition, and you have to either let him go--and then your rates will only go up 20 percent--or if you keep him, your rates are going to go up 40 percent. That put this fellow, the owner of the firm, the guy I was talking to, in an untenable position. So what did he do? He shopped around. He looked and looked to try to find another insurance company that would not raise his premiums so much. Finally, he found one. His rates went up but not a full 40. I have forgotten how much they went up. But it was wrong for him to be in that position because he was not going to fire that person who was such a good person who had been with him for such a long period of time. So our bill would begin reforming the way the government pays for health care. Right now the government pays for the number of services performed; our bill will begin to help the government pay for quality-- a very important point. I think this is the real game changer, this is what is going to make a difference over time, is how we pay for health care. About 5, 6, 7 years from now, when these provisions kick in, we are going to be very happy we took the first step because that is what is going to make a big difference. So I say my colleagues on the other side of the aisle threw a whole lot of criticisms at our bill just now, but because you say something does not mean it is true. Frankly, that is why I thought it important to stand and set the record straight because what they are saying is not true. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m. today the Senate proceed to vote with respect to the following amendments, with no amendments in order to the amendments on this list, prior to a vote in relation thereto; that prior to each vote listed here there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; and that after the first vote in the sequence, succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes each; further, that the debate time until 2:30 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees: Stabenow amendment No. 3382, Brown amendment No. 3391, Burr amendment No. 3389, Sessions-McCaskill amendment No. 3337; further, that upon disposition of these four amendments, the Senate then proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 609, the nomination of William Conley to be U.S. district judge for the Western District of Wisconsin; that once the nomination has been reported, the Senate then proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield such time as he desires to the Senator from Massachusetts. Amendment No. 3403

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in all quorum calls prior to the vote at 2:30 p.m. be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as a former President used to say, ``There they go again.'' There they go again trying to cut back the Recovery Act. There they go again trying to scale back what CBO says is a proven success in creating jobs. They tried it with the Bunning amendment Tuesday, they tried it with the Thune amendment yesterday, they tried it with the Bunning amendment yesterday, they tried it with the Burr amendment yesterday. Each time the Senate rejected their attempt to raid the Recovery Act, and we should do the same again today. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the Recovery Act created between 1 and 3 million full-time equivalent jobs. That is real job creation. Now is not the time to be scaling back job creation. I urge that we do not adopt this amendment. I raise a point of order against section 103(d) of the pending amendment pursuant to section 403 of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending Brown amendment violates section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment is the Burr amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as Yogi Berra once said: ``It's deja vu all over again.'' That is where we are. We have had this amendment--not this precise amendment but many similar to it--many times, taking Recovery Act funds out. Just to remind my colleagues, CBO says there are 1 million to 3 million jobs the stimulus bill has created. There is more yet in the recovery package to continue to create more jobs. Now is not the time to cut back on a proven job creator. Therefore, I urge that we do not adopt this amendment. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending Burr amendment violates section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I rise to talk about one of the most magnificent, the most inspiring places on Earth, the Flathead region of Montana. The landscape in this area is so vast, so unique, it is hard to put into words. But let me feebly attempt to describe the aura of colors you see as the Sun rises over the deep blue of Lake McDonald. Words cannot capture the joyful screams of families shooting down the Middle Fork of the Flathead through rapids with names like ``Bone Crusher'' and ``Could be Trouble.'' Words cannot do justice to the awe that comes from almost touching Montana's legendary Big Sky at the top of Heavens Peak. The Flathead region, there is nothing like it. It is the crown of the continent. It is God's country. It is Montana. There is one particular area of this region that holds a special place in my heart; that is, the North Fork of the Flathead River. When I was a freshman Member of the House of Representatives, I took a hike with my friends, Jack Stanford and Ric Hauer, to the top of Mount Harding. Mount Harding is a little ways from the Flathead River, but this hike captured the feelings I have for the area. Thirty-five years ago, I still remember that hike, and I am not alone. Similar to everyone who ventures into the Flathead, every Montanan, every American, every Canadian, everyone who happens to be touched by the beauty of this place could not help but be stunned by the beauty of a place carved by glaciers a millennia ago and still untouched by modern development. That day on the Flathead, each of us knew we must do everything we could to protect this one-of-a-kind landscape for our children and our children' children. I would say, at that time, 35 years ago as a Member of the House, very proudly enacted the first multiyear environmental impact statement baseline study so we could assess what future impacts might be in the area, whether it was Federal, State, private or from British Columbia, just north, whatever it might be, so we knew what we had to do to protect the area. That promise has not always been easy to keep. Back then, I was so determined to protect this area, I flew up to Toronto and met with a fellow named Ron Sadler. Rod Sadler was president of Sage Creek. I was like a young lawyer, armed with tons of questions and depositions, and kept asking him--I kept asking him all these questions: What is your intention here? What is your intention there? This is such a special place. He is like: Why are you asking me all those questions? I explained: This is so special, I am going to do everything I can to protect it. The reason is because of the potential mining across the border, the place where all the water and the pollution would flow south into the North Fork of the Flathead. All the environmental degradation from that flowed south, but all the economic benefit would flow north. So, for me, I will not let this happen. I said to myself: I am going to protect this as much as I possibly can. For decades, the Flathead has been threatened by mining proposals in British Columbia. Over the years, coal mining, coalbed methane extraction, and gold mining have all been successfully beaten back. It has been a coordinated effort, one I am very proud to be a part of, to help protect the area. We have been working so hard. Finally, the Premier of British Columbia made a historic decision. He persuaded his Parliament to pass a resolution to protect and prevent any mining development in the North Fork. He made that on the eve of the Olympics. The Olympics--Mount Whistler and that part, the southern part of British Columbia, he made that decision just before the Olympics. I was overjoyed. I called him up, and I said: Mr. Premier, I cannot tell you how happy I am that you have done this. It means so much to Montanans, and we will do our part too. That is when I told him my plan. My plan, the legislation Senator Tester and I introduced today, will ban future mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development on the American side of the border; that is, in the Flathead National Forest, a portion of the North Fork watershed which is over 90 percent federally owned. Senator Tester and I have also pledged to work to retire the existing leases to protect this area once and for all. Many folks know about a book written by Norman McLean. Norman McLean wrote a story about Montana entitled ``A River Runs Through It.'' Though McLean's story focuses on another Montana river, the Blackfoot, also very special, I think the final line from his book resonantes here as well. This is what McLean wrote: Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood, and runs over rocks from the basement of time. . . . I am haunted by waters. I am very proud to be here today to introduce the North Fork Watershed Protect Act and ask my colleagues to join me in preserving these waters and the land that surrounds them so that every generation across the country, across the world, has the privilege of being so haunted by Montana's waters.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I rise to talk about one of the most magnificent, the most inspiring places on Earth, the Flathead region of Montana. The landscape in this area is so vast, so unique, it is hard to put into words. But let me feebly attempt to describe the aura of colors you see as the Sun rises over the deep blue of Lake McDonald. Words cannot capture the joyful screams of families shooting down the Middle Fork of the Flathead through rapids with names like ``Bone Crusher'' and ``Could be Trouble.'' Words cannot do justice to the awe that comes from almost touching Montana's legendary Big Sky at the top of Heavens Peak. The Flathead region, there is nothing like it. It is the crown of the continent. It is God's country. It is Montana. There is one particular area of this region that holds a special place in my heart; that is, the North Fork of the Flathead River. When I was a freshman Member of the House of Representatives, I took a hike with my friends, Jack Stanford and Ric Hauer, to the top of Mount Harding. Mount Harding is a little ways from the Flathead River, but this hike captured the feelings I have for the area. Thirty-five years ago, I still remember that hike, and I am not alone. Similar to everyone who ventures into the Flathead, every Montanan, every American, every Canadian, everyone who happens to be touched by the beauty of this place could not help but be stunned by the beauty of a place carved by glaciers a millennia ago and still untouched by modern development. That day on the Flathead, each of us knew we must do everything we could to protect this one-of-a-kind landscape for our children and our children' children. I would say, at that time, 35 years ago as a Member of the House, very proudly enacted the first multiyear environmental impact statement baseline study so we could assess what future impacts might be in the area, whether it was Federal, State, private or from British Columbia, just north, whatever it might be, so we knew what we had to do to protect the area. That promise has not always been easy to keep. Back then, I was so determined to protect this area, I flew up to Toronto and met with a fellow named Ron Sadler. Rod Sadler was president of Sage Creek. I was like a young lawyer, armed with tons of questions and depositions, and kept asking him--I kept asking him all these questions: What is your intention here? What is your intention there? This is such a special place. He is like: Why are you asking me all those questions? I explained: This is so special, I am going to do everything I can to protect it. The reason is because of the potential mining across the border, the place where all the water and the pollution would flow south into the North Fork of the Flathead. All the environmental degradation from that flowed south, but all the economic benefit would flow north. So, for me, I will not let this happen. I said to myself: I am going to protect this as much as I possibly can. For decades, the Flathead has been threatened by mining proposals in British Columbia. Over the years, coal mining, coalbed methane extraction, and gold mining have all been successfully beaten back. It has been a coordinated effort, one I am very proud to be a part of, to help protect the area. We have been working so hard. Finally, the Premier of British Columbia made a historic decision. He persuaded his Parliament to pass a resolution to protect and prevent any mining development in the North Fork. He made that on the eve of the Olympics. The Olympics--Mount Whistler and that part, the southern part of British Columbia, he made that decision just before the Olympics. I was overjoyed. I called him up, and I said: Mr. Premier, I cannot tell you how happy I am that you have done this. It means so much to Montanans, and we will do our part too. That is when I told him my plan. My plan, the legislation Senator Tester and I introduced today, will ban future mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development on the American side of the border; that is, in the Flathead National Forest, a portion of the North Fork watershed which is over 90 percent federally owned. Senator Tester and I have also pledged to work to retire the existing leases to protect this area once and for all. Many folks know about a book written by Norman McLean. Norman McLean wrote a story about Montana entitled ``A River Runs Through It.'' Though McLean's story focuses on another Montana river, the Blackfoot, also very special, I think the final line from his book resonantes here as well. This is what McLean wrote: Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood, and runs over rocks from the basement of time. . . . I am haunted by waters. I am very proud to be here today to introduce the North Fork Watershed Protect Act and ask my colleagues to join me in preserving these waters and the land that surrounds them so that every generation across the country, across the world, has the privilege of being so haunted by Montana's waters.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff be allowed the privilege of the floor during consideration of the pending bill: Mary Baker, Ivie English, Lucas Hamilton, Sam Kohn, Scott Mathews, Tsveta Polhemus, and Meena Sharma.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand we will have two amendments we will be voting on shortly; they will be the Thune amendment and the Grassley amendment. Let me say a few words about each--first, the Grassley amendment. The Grassley amendment essentially extends the formula under which doctors are paid, reimbursed for Medicare services, by 3 more months. The underlying bill, in the formula known as sustainable growth rate, otherwise known as SGR, extends it for 7 months. Frankly, it is my preference, strange as it may sound, that the extension be not 7 months but 3 months, but when we negotiated out these provisions, it turns out the extension was 7 months. You might ask why I favor a 3-month extension rather than 7 months. There are two reasons. The main reason is that I firmly expect health care reform to be passed within 3 months. If the formula, the sustainable growth rate, is extended for 3 months, that enables us, as soon as health care reform is passed, to then address how we then get a much better solution to the SGR, the sustainable growth rate, and my preference would be a permanent solution. I am afraid if we extend this for, say, 10 months and then health care reform is passed, fixing the permanent formula will not have the same urgency as it otherwise would. So I do very much believe what we have now in the bill--7 months--is better than a 3-month extension. Another way of saying it, as much as I admire my good friend from Iowa, it would not be appropriate to adopt his amendment. In fact, I do not favor his amendment. The second reason is probably more compelling, and that is, although he does pay for his amendment by extending the formula for 3 more months, he does so by taking the funds out of a fund which is used for Medicare. It is called the MIF, the Medicare Improvement Fund. The Medicare Improvement Fund is very--it is almost essential so that we have funds to pay for the underlying health care bill. It is very important that the underlying health care bill be deficit neutral. We are working on certain modifications to the health care reform bill, the bill that has passed the Senate. As we know, it is over in the House. As the President announced just a few minutes ago, he wants us--I think it is the right thing to do--to pass a modification to that bill by a majority vote. If we are going to do that, we have to make sure it is deficit neutral. In fact, I would like it even better than deficit neutral; that is, that it would reduce the deficit. This Medicare Improvement Fund can help very much toward assuring us that the underlying bill, the health reform bill, is in fact deficit neutral. So for those two reasons: One, I think it is better for us to pass health care reform using some of the funds in the Medicare Improvement Fund so we can make it deficit neutral, pass it, and then we can work on improving and finding a permanent solution to the sustainable growth rate formula, a formula that has bedeviled us for many years. For those two reasons, I very much urge us to--as much as I appreciate the efforts of my good friend from Iowa, discretion is the better part of valor here. It would be better for us not to adopt that amendment because we do need those dollars to help make sure we can pay for the underlying health care reform bill. There is another amendment we will be voting on soon. It is No. 3338, the Thune amendment. I support many of the small business tax relief concepts outlined by Senator Thune. In fact, many of these will be discussed as part of the small business jobs bill to be introduced quite shortly. By that I mean in the next maybe week or two. I am not sure exactly when, but quite soon the Finance Committee will be marking up a small business jobs bill. I spoke with Senator Landrieu, who is the chairperson of the Small Business Committee. We put together a small business jobs package which we think will be quite effective in helping small business people be more prosperous and have more people able to work for small business firms. I might say, however, that Senator Thune's amendment is problematic for two reasons. First, his amendment makes several provisions permanent. This is not the time for that discussion. Making these provisions permanent is expensive, and, therefore, permanent provisions need to be discussed as part of comprehensive tax reform. Second, Senator Thune's amendment would be offset with unspent and unallocated mandatory spending of stimulus funds. I might say there is growing evidence that the recovery package is working. There has been some debate over that proposition, but I think the wave of evidence is that the stimulus funds in the recovery package have had a significant positive effect. The Congressional Budget Office has said so. Over the last 6 months of 2009, for example, the overall economy grew at an annual rate of 4 percent. I am quite confident that had we not passed the stimulus measure, the growth rate would not be at that rate; it would be lower. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 5.7 percent. Now, that might be somewhat artificially high because of inventory, but, nevertheless, that was the number. One year earlier, in the fourth quarter of 2008, it was actually declining at an annual rate of more than 5 percent. Manufacturing in the United States expanded in August for the first time in 19 months. Just think of that. Manufacturing in our country expanded in August for the first time in 19 months. Housing prices in many parts of the country have stabilized; some are even increasing. The Case-Shiller index of home prices has now risen 7 months in a row. Unemployment is improving. According to the Congressional Budget Office, last year's Recovery Act added between 1 million and 2.1 million people to our country's payroll. The Recovery Act--that is the stimulus bill I am talking about--lowered the unemployment rate by between .5 percent and 1.5 percentage points from where it otherwise would have been. In addition, the Federal Reserve and many independent economists have credited the stimulus with playing a role in stabilizing the economy. But we still have work to do. The national unemployment rate stands at 9.7 percent. The CBO estimates that 8 million jobs have been lost over the course of the ``Great Recession.'' They also say unemployment may not be in its natural state of 5 percent until the year 2016. Revoking stimulus funds now would send exactly the wrong signal to the American economy and to unemployed people in our country. Just think of that. Revoking stimulus funds now. Just think of the signal that would send. We know there are more funds in the pipeline. The stimulus program is working. We take that away, just think of the signal that would send across our country. We passed stimulus to give a needed boost to our economy. The bill is designed to work over 2 years--2 years. We are in the second year now, just beginning the second year now. We have successfully started down the road to recovery, and the economy would falter if these funds were withdrawn. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Amendment No. 3338, as Further Modified Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:45 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments, in the order listed, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to this vote; that prior to each vote there be 4 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form: Thune amendment No. 3338, as modified, and that prior to the vote it be further modified with the changes at the desk; and the Grassley amendment No. 3352.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first, will the Senator tell me the content of the amendment?

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, tell me the content.

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that. This is something that I do not like doing. I am constrained to object, however, because we have had requests from other Senators who wish to bring up their amendments, and, frankly, we have asked them to defer temporarily so we can set up a reasonable order back and forth of Senators. Regrettably, I do not like objecting, but I do feel constrained to object to the Senator's request.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3342 offered by Senators Webb and Boxer.