Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS. I just heard the Senator say, in defense of Senator Bunning, that our side will not allow Senator Bunning to have a vote. I want to clear up the record. That is not the case at all. As far as I am concerned, Senator Bunning can have his vote. He can have his vote on his pay-for. The point is, does Senator Bunning want an assurance that he has enough votes from the Democratic side so that his vote passes? Well, of course not. We vote here; that is what the Senate is for. Those in favor vote aye; those not in favor vote no. That is the democratic process. That is the process most Americans understand. So if he wants his vote, he can ask for it and he can have that vote. I will not prejudge whether he will win or lose. As far as this Senator is concerned, he can have that vote. My expectation would be after that vote is concluded one way or another we can vote on the underlying 30- day amendment so we can finally get people their unemployment checks that are due, their COBRA benefits, and their health premium subsidies that are due. Finally, we can enable doctors to be paid so they can see Medicare patients. This is a very simple solution. We can just vote. If Senator Bunning wants to vote, I say: Fine, let's vote. If he complains: Oh, no, I want to make sure I win, I don't think that is entirely proper. I think it is proper to have the votes, and Senators can vote their wishes and their views. We can have that vote. When that is concluded, we can go on to the 30-day resolution so that people can get the benefits they are due. That is the only responsible and reasonable way to deal with this. I hope we do that. We are waiting for the Senator from Kentucky to indicate whether he would like to vote. It is pretty simple. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to Calendar No. 278, H.R. 4691, a 30-day extension of provisions that expired Sunday, February 28; that the Bunning amendment regarding offset, which is at the desk, be the only amendment in order; that there be 60 minutes for debate with respect to the amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Reid and Bunning or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the time until 8:30 p.m. be for debate with respect to the bill, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Baucus and Grassley or their designees; that at 8:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Bunning amendment; that no further amendments be in order; that upon disposition of the Bunning amendment, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read the third time; that prior to passage, it be in order to raise an applicable budget point of order against the bill; further, that if the point of order is raised, then a motion to waive the applicable point of order be considered made, with no further debate in order; provided that if the point of order is waived, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; further, that when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 4213, the next two Democratic amendments be offered by Senators Murray and Sanders and the next two Republican amendments be Bunning amendments.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

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

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: Randy Aussenberg, Aislinn Baker, Brittany Durell, Dustin Stevens, Greg Sullivan, Max Updike, and Ashley Zuelke.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I now call up my amendment by number and urge its consideration.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Martin Luther King, Jr., once said: Life's most urgent question is: What are you doing for others? Pretty much all of us came here to the Senate to work on that urgent question. Pretty much all of us came here to help other Americans. On a number of levels, the legislation before us today is urgent legislation. The legislation before us today is urgent because it would prevent millions of Americans from falling through the safety net. The legislation before us is urgent because it would extend vital safety net programs that expired yesterday. The legislation before us is urgent because it would put cash in the hands of Americans who could spend it quickly, boosting economic demand. The legislation before us today is urgent because it would extend critical programs and tax incentives that create jobs. The legislation before us today is urgent because it is important that we here can do this for other Americans. Since the recession began, more than 7 million Americans have lost their jobs. The unemployment rate remains nearly 10 percent. For Americans without a job, this great recession is a great depression. If you do not have a job, it is a depression. Last week, with a solid bipartisan vote, we passed legislation to help create jobs. We can and should do more, and by extending this package of vital provisions we can do just that. The provisions in this bill are important to American families. They are important to communities that have suffered a natural disaster. They are important to businesses competing in the global economy. They are important to furthering America's commitment to energy independence. The need is urgent. Yesterday many of these important provisions expired. Millions of Americans are being put at risk. The expiration of these provisions has left gaping holes in the safety net. Among the provisions that expired yesterday are these: expanded unemployment insurance benefits; COBRA subsidies to help people keep their health insurance; a provision that keeps folks right at the poverty line from losing their benefits; the small business loan program; the temporary measure to prevent a 21-percent cut to doctors under Medicare; the Flood Insurance Program; the Satellite Home Viewer Act. Unless we reinstate the programs in this bill, there will be real world consequences for the people who depend on these programs today. Take unemployment insurance. This bill would extend the program for expanded unemployment benefits. These benefits expired on Sunday. The bill would extend what is called Federal emergency unemployment compensation. This bill would extend 100 percent Federal extended benefits. That is a program where State governments normally have to pay 50 percent. We would also extend the additional $25 a week for each beneficiary receiving unemployment benefits. According to the National Employment Law Project, 5.6 million people are currently benefiting from one of the Federal unemployment benefits. Mr. President, 5.6 million people today benefit. Between March and November of last year, we distributed nearly $8.3 billion in additional benefits through the additional $25-a-week supplement. For example, my office received word about one unemployed Montana worker who had been living in a homeless shelter for more than a month. This Montanan used emergency unemployment compensation benefits to move closer to an out-of-State relative. The relative helped the Montanan through this difficult time. With the help of emergency unemployment compensation benefits and the help of family, this Montanan was able to find work again. Unemployment benefits also make good economic sense. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that every dollar spent on unemployment benefits generates up to $1.90 in additional gross domestic product. That is $1 to $1.90. This makes unemployment benefits one of the most cost-effective policies for stimulating the economy. By helping our unemployment workers through this long recession, we help to keep the neighborhood gas station operating. We help to keep a house from foreclosure. And we help to keep our economy from further damage. We must act immediately to help the more than 1 million people who lost their benefits yesterday. My heart goes out to them and to their families and hope that they can hold on while we work to clear up this mess, in order to clear this bill and bring them the help they deserve and on which they have been depending. A second vital program in this bill that expired yesterday is a program that provides a tax benefit for COBRA health benefits. What is that? That is the program that helps workers who lose their jobs to keep their health insurance. When workers lose their jobs, they lose more than just their paychecks. Unfortunately, they often lose their ability to afford health care coverage as well. Today, roughly 60 percent of the nonelderly population receives health insurance through their jobs. In most cases, unemployed workers have the right to keep their work coverage for up to 18 months through the COBRA program. But to receive COBRA health benefits, workers must typically pay all of the premium costs, plus an additional 2 percent for administrative costs; that is, they pay 102 percent. That is not right. For a family of four, the average monthly COBRA premium is $1,100. For most people out of work, that is simply unaffordable. How can a family who is out of work pay health benefits at a rate of $1,100 a month? They cannot do it. The Recovery Act helped unemployed workers and their families to cover the costs. This assistance helped millions of unemployed workers and their families to maintain health insurance while they look for a new job. Unfortunately, COBRA assistance expired yesterday, and that is the provision that gave a 65-percent subsidy. It expired yesterday. This means workers who lose their jobs today or afterwards will not be eligible for COBRA assistance. They can still buy health insurance through the COBRA program if they can find the dollars to pay full freight. That is 102 percent of their current premium. For many folks, that is simply unaffordable. Unless we act, the ranks of those living in fear without health insurance will grow even more. Third, without this legislation, physicians who treat our seniors and military families will face an immediate 21-percent pay cut. That is right, an immediate 21-percent cut in pay. That is more than families lost in net worth during the worst of the recession in 2008, and that is nearly twice as much as home prices fell last year. This cut would force doctors to stop seeing patients. This cut would mean less access to care for our parents and our grandparents. This cut would mean our doctors would be forced to cut their own costs, potentially forcing them to lay off staff. Thankfully, the administration announced on Friday it will use its existing authority to delay the effect of this cut for the immediate future. But that is not going to last very long. We cannot delay action any longer. Seniors, military families, and physicians deserve better. In Montana, 2,000 doctors serve 140,000 seniors who depend on Medicare for lifesaving health care. Montana has 32,000 military families who should not be turned away from their doctor's door either. They deserve access to the best health care we can give them. They deserve a Congress willing to put politics aside and put them first. This bill before us today will avert the 21-percent cut because of the so-called sustainable growth rate. We adopt here another short-term stopgap. Next time, we hope and expect that we will come back to a long-term solution. We must find one. By exempting part of the SGR from the new statutory pay-go rules, the Senate recently recognized that a long-term solution will require a short-term investment. The House followed suit. I hope this push will aid us in finding a permanent solution for the sake of our seniors' continued access to medical care. A fourth provision in this bill affects the 2009 poverty guidelines. Why is this important? Let me tell you. Dozens of programs are available to help lower income Americans. We all know the important role these programs play in keeping those less fortunate fed, keeping them healthy and safe. I am talking about programs such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--formerly known as food stamps--the School Lunch Program, and the Low Income Home Emergency Assistance Program, otherwise known as LIHEAP. Eligibility for these and many other programs is based on the Federal poverty guidelines. These guidelines are updated every year for inflation. But the update for this year, 2010, will cause people who are currently eligible for and benefiting from these programs to lose their eligibility. You may wonder why at a time of economic crisis poverty-based program eligibility would decrease. You might think that sounds counterintuitive. One of the effects of the current economic crisis is that inflation went down. That means the average cost of everyday things, such as clothes, transportation, and rent, is less than it was the year before. However, because the Federal poverty guidelines are based on the average cost of everyday goods, the poverty level for 2010 would be less than it was for 2009. This is the first time in the history of the guidelines that such a decrease would occur. That, clearly, is not the right outcome. We should not make fewer people eligible for poverty- based programs at precisely the time when those safety-net programs are serving the very purpose for which they were created. Safety-net programs are there to help people when times are tough. That is their purpose. But there is a simple solution: we can simply leave the guidelines developed for 2009 in place. That way, people who were eligible can remain eligible. Leaving the 2009 guidelines in place would mean people would not lose their health care by being kicked off of Medicaid. It would mean families would not go hungry because they lost their eligibility for a number of nutrition programs. It would mean low-income folks could still heat their homes this cold and snowy winter thanks to LIHEAP. Keeping the 2009 guidelines in place would not increase eligibility. It would mean we would avoid pulling the safety net out from under the people it is there to protect. Fifth, for individuals and families, this bill provides much needed tax relief in a time of economic uncertainty. For example, many students don't have the books or supplies they need. Some teachers have to buy classroom supplies using money from their own pockets, if you can believe it. This bill extends the expense deduction for teachers buying school supplies for their classrooms. It extends the qualified tuition deduction to help with college costs. The bill provides much needed relief to families who have suffered from natural disasters. It extends a package of disaster relief provisions developed to address all federally declared disaster areas with immediate, reliable, and robust tax relief. It extends important business provisions to help create jobs and make our companies competitive in a global economy. America counts for one- third of the world's investment in scientific research and development. We rank first among all countries, but relative to the size of our economy, America is in sixth place. The trends show that maintaining American leadership in the future depends on an increased commitment to science and research. Yet our R&D tax credit expired at the end of last year. This will put American corporations at a competitive disadvantage. Corporations are unsure if they will be able to obtain the R&D credit next year, and they need to plan for the future. American financial services companies successfully compete in world financial markets. We need to make sure the U.S. tax rules do not change that. This legislation extends the active financing exception to subpart F. In so doing, it preserves the international competitiveness of American-based financial services companies, while including safeguards to ensure that only truly active businesses benefit. This provision will put the American financial services industry on an equal footing with foreign-based competitors that are not taxed on active financial services income. Several energy tax incentives also expired at the end of last year. This bill extends those incentives to encourage continued investment in technologies that promote energy independence. For example, the bill extends incentives for new hybrid battery technology and the construction of new energy-efficient homes. Sixth, in addition to these important provisions that provide direct assistance and job creation, the bill includes other proposals that will provide relief for businesses and individuals. One such provision is pension funding relief. These days, American employers are faced with the need to make higher pension contributions. Several factors have combined to require these higher contributions: There is the funding changes of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, there is the slide in the stock market in 2008, and then there is the ensuing great recession. These requirements for higher contributions are coming upon employers just when they are facing lower asset values and lower cash flow. Meeting these requirements could divert resources employers could use to keep workers on the payroll. We addressed this bind temporarily in the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008, but employers are still facing the prospect of closing plants and stores. Employers are still faced with the possibility of terminating workers in order to make up for lost asset values. The bill contains additional temporary, targeted, and appropriate relief for these employers. At the same time, the bill still maintains the pension and security system. Seventh, this bill would also extend several important health provisions that expired at the end of 2009. Notable among these is the exceptions process for Medicare therapy caps. Extending this provision will help ensure Medicare beneficiaries will continue to receive access to the therapy services they need. Several rural policies are also extended. Eighth, these tough economic times have hit the States hard as well. So included in this bill is a 6-month extension of the additional Federal financial assistance for State Medicaid Programs. This will allow States to plan for their next fiscal year with the certainty of continued help from the Federal Government. Additional Federal Medicaid match money--known as FMAP--helps the economy grow. According to economist Mark Zandi, this funding has return on investment of about $1.40 for every dollar invested. The Nation's Governors have repeatedly asked for an extension of this Federal assistance, and this bill answers their pleas. With so many Americans out of work, our country needs Congress to enact this legislation. This bill continues valuable tax incentives to families and businesses that will help them in these difficult economic times. The bill sustains vital safety-net programs that will also help foster economic growth. As I said at the outset, this is not just ordinary legislation; this is urgent legislation. It would prevent millions of Americans from falling through the safety net. It would extend vital programs that expired yesterday--expired yesterday. It would put cash in the hands of Americans who would spend it quickly, boosting economic demand. It would extend critical programs and tax incentives that create jobs. It is an important bill that we here can do for other Americans. So let's help America's businesses to create more jobs. Let's join to work across the aisle on this commonsense legislation, and let's enact these tax incentives and safety-net provisions into law. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona argues that unemployment insurance is a disincentive to jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't think anybody who is out of work and receiving unemployment insurance believes that payment is sufficient not to find a job. The payments are so much lower than a salary or wage would be, it is ridiculous. There are five unemployed Americans today for every job opening in the economy--five unemployed Americans who are looking for work but cannot find it. That is the case and has been the case for a long time. People are looking for work. They are not unemployed because they have a choice. It is because of the recession that struck and the economy. It is not because people don't want to work. An additional point. Many of us asked the CBO to rank what measures would be most effective in helping the economy. The one they came up with was unemployment benefits because unemployment benefits generate about $1.90 in GDP growth for every $1 we paid out in terms of unemployment benefits. I wished to make the point--and I don't know if the Senator meant this, but he strongly implied it, and I took him to mean that unemployment insurance is a disincentive for people to look for work. I don't think it is because the benefits are so low and so many are looking for work--it is the economy or recession that cost us jobs.

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that. I have a question. First of all, unemployment benefits in Montana are about $300 a month. That is all. It is $300 a month in Montana. I know doggone well that is not enough to keep anybody going very long. Lots of folks are looking for jobs, and they are not available. Failure to pass the extenders bill could be fairly stated as a job destroyer because there are so many people who have taken advantage of many provisions of the bill--for example, the R&D tax credit, which the Senator mentioned, and there are other provisions in the bill, such as the teachers expense, for example, and there is a deduction for tuition. Take unemployment. Say unemployment insurance was not continued. That would be a huge drag on the economy. If the provisions we are seeking merely to extend were not passed, it would be a job destroyer. The President's office said, and many commentators have often said, our goal is to save or create so many jobs. It is hard to know what is saved or created sometimes. But we certainly want to save jobs too. We don't want the recession to be worse. Failure to pass this legislation is certainly going to cause tremendous hardship on a lot of Americans, and it would be a disincentive for the economy to turn around. It would be a disincentive for unemployment rates to come down to a lower level that we all find acceptable. Failure to pass this bill is a jobs destroyer. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I don't want to prolong this too long, but the fact is, the President's Council of Economic Advisers has concluded this legislation; that is, the health care reform legislation which is not before us right now, actually would create jobs, new jobs. That is the conclusion of the economic advisers.

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Alabama. He is concerned, as we all are, with our current fiscal situation, our debts and our deficits. I might add--this is not an excuse; it is clear we Americans have a problem that has to be addressed--other countries are in the same fix. It is not just America. But again, that is no excuse. Our deficits are high primarily because of the financial crisis, working our way through all that. The real test is whether we as a country, when times get better and incomes increase, live much more within our means. I certainly hope so. I know every Senator in this body hopes so. More precisely, the Senator from Alabama seeks to place caps on the appropriated accounts. That is pretty much the same amendment the Senate rejected about a month ago; I think it was January 28. I believe the pending Sessions amendment addresses matters within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. It therefore violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act. I will not raise that point of order at this time, but I believe the amendment does violate the Budget Act. Furthermore, this subject is really more within the purview of the Appropriations Committee. I defer to the chairman of the Budget Committee to address this amendment in due course. I also note that the Senator from Minnesota has been waiting very patiently to speak. We are all anxious to hear from the Senator from Minnesota, so I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. No, I did not.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, is the Senator asking unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment?

Mr. BAUCUS. You wish to set aside the pending amendment?

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we are here to do the people's business. The folks in our home States elected us to do what is right. Most folks don't care too much about the process, as long as we get our job done and as long as it is reasonable, within the boundaries of reasonableness, and as long as they think we give the subject considerable thought. I think we agree that is true. I think it is largely true that most of the people would think: Well, gee, why don't you go ahead and pass that extenders thing you are talking about back there because it is the right thing to do. People need to collect their unemployment checks. They need their health insurance. Some of these tax provisions need to be continued; otherwise, this is a job-killer action the other side is taking. It is a job destroyer. To not continue these provisions actually destroys jobs. That is not what we want to do. On another matter: The Senator from South Dakota proposes an amendment to make a series of tax cuts for small business. I might say that some of these tax cuts, the ones he proposes, actually have merit. We in the Finance Committee hope to address small business tax cuts in a markup perhaps as early as this month. This is a jobs agenda. It is additional legislation to help create jobs, preserve jobs, and help the recovery come along a little more quickly. The offset, however, that the Senator from South Dakota proposes is another matter. The Senator from South Dakota seeks to pay for his amendment by cutting funding from the Recovery Act, and that idea does not have much merit, at least not in this Senator's judgment. Pretty much the last thing we should do is to be seeking to cut the Recovery Act. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the independent organization we rely upon around here--both sides of the aisle in both bodies--says the Recovery Act is working. The Congressional Budget Act says that in the third quarter of last year, for example, the Recovery Act caused between 600,000 and 1.6 million people to have jobs. That sounds as though it is working to me. The CBO also said these people had jobs who would not otherwise have had jobs. I, therefore, think we should not be cutting back on the Recovery Act; rather, we should let it work its will. The investments the Senator from South Dakota seeks to cut in addition are largely within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee and, thus, I will defer to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee who I think at the appropriate time will have quite a bit to say about this Thune amendment and will speak to it at greater length. I suggest that is an appropriate time to have a more lengthy discussion on this matter. Madam President, 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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. Tuesday, March 2; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 1 hour, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Barbara Keenan, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, under a previous order, the time following morning business until 12:15 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees. At 12:15 p.m., the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Barbara Keenan to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

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 Senate Amendment 3310, The `Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act,' under consideration by the Senate'' be printed in the Record. In addition, the Record should reflect that the document entitled ``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, The `Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act,' under consideration by the Senate'' can be found on the Joint Committee on Taxation website at http://jct.gov/ publications.html?func=startdown&id= 3648. 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, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.