Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Bennett from Utah, for his statement. He makes some very good points. Although I will not be able to support the amendment, I wish to say his presentation and the points he is making are quite good. Amendment No. 3300 Madam President, I have an amendment which I would like to explain. It is very simple. It will protect Social Security from cuts in the fast-track process proposed to be created in the Conrad-Gregg amendment. It is clear from the public statements of Senators Conrad and Gregg, they have painted a big red target on Social Security and Medicare. That is what this commission is all about. It is a big roll of the dice for Social Security and Medicare. Millions of American seniors rely on Social Security. Social Security is a commitment to America's seniors. I might say, if we did not have Social Security, as to estimates I have seen, about half of American seniors today would be living in poverty. Social Security basically has kept a lot of senior Americans from living in poverty. We should, therefore, prevent a fast-track process from reneging on Social Security's commitment to those people and putting a lot of people back in poor economic straits. Numerous groups representing seniors have called for excluding Social Security from this fast-track process. AARP, for one, recommends that Social Security be excluded from the commission's deliberations. This is what AARP says: [W]e urge that Social Security not be considered in the context of debt reduction; this program does not contribute to the annual deficit, and its long-term solvency can be resolved by relatively modest adjustments if they are made sooner rather than later. The National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare also focused on Social Security, arguing that it is inappropriate for such a commission. Here is what they wrote: Incorporating Social Security into such a commission would signal to America's seniors that the President is willing, and even eager, to cut Social Security benefits. Ultimately, older Americans will accept changes in Social Security only if they have a voice in the decision and feel confident that changes are solely for the purpose of improving and strengthening the program. For this reason, Social Security solvency should not be taken up in the context of a fiscal commission. A consortium of groups from the AFL-CIO to Common Cause, to NOW, once again, focused on the problems with allowing the budget commission to change Social Security. Here is what they wrote: [A]n American public that only recently rejected privatization of Social Security will undoubtedly be suspicious of a process that shuts them out of all decisions regarding the future of a retirement system that's served them well in the current financial crisis. The idea of excluding Social Security from fast-track processes is not new. Congress already excludes Social Security from the fast-track reconciliation process. The text of my amendment is very similar to a provision that appears right now in section 310(g) of the Congressional Budget Act. That Budget Act section prohibits using reconciliation to make cuts to Social Security. That is in the law today. My amendment would do the same for the fast-track procedures in the Conrad-Gregg amendment. The Senate added the Budget Act section on which my amendment is patterned to the law in 1985. Senator Hawkins of Florida offered the amendment, and the Senate adopted it by voice vote on October 8, 1985. It has been the law for nearly 25 years. Let me read from some of the debate that occurred that day in 1985. Much of that debate is directly relevant to the amendment I propose today. Senator Hawkins explained the purpose of her amendment. She said: This amendment states that changes in Social Security cannot be made in reconciliation. Senator Hawkins continued: The whole idea behind removing Social Security from the unified budget is to make changes in the program based on the needs and constraints of the program itself and not for short-term budgetary reasons. Social Security is self-financed and has long-term goals. It should not be subject to the same constraints of programs competing for scarce general revenue funds. If my amendment is . . . adopted, it does not mean that changes in Social Security could never be made. It merely means that if and when changes are made to Social Security, it would not be in the context of the budget. Senator Heinz of Pennsylvania supported the Hawkins amendment. Here is what Senator Heinz said. This is 1985: I think we first do agree that the legislation needs language that does what the Senator from Florida suggests this does; namely, to put an extra lock on the door so no one can say that Social Security is going to end up in reconciliation. That is the intent. Senator Heinz continued: This language . . . does a very important job by making a point of order in order against any reconciliation bill that comes to the floor with Social Security cuts in it. Senator Heinz made clear that under the provision the Senate was adding to the Budget Act, Congress could still make changes to Social Security, just not in a fast-track vehicle. Senator Heinz went on to say: [T]he Finance Committee retains jurisdiction over the programs involving the Social Security Act. And were it required, for reasons having to do with solvency of Social Security, reasons of equity, having to do with either the taxes or the benefits involving Social Security, or any other reason having to do with it that we might see fit, but not having to do with reconciliation and the budget process, we could work our will, as we have in the past, on the Social Security Program. But not as part of the reconciliation. Senator Rudman of New Hampshire, a cosponsor of the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings budget process, spoke in favor of the amendment. Here is what he said: [T]he language offered by the Senator from Florida has one single effect. That effect is that any reconciliation taken by the Senate Finance Committee would have to survive a point of order if it dealt with anything that had to do with old age assistance. Senator Domenici of New Mexico, then the chairman of the Budget Committee, also explained the Hawkins amendment in the same way. This is what Senator Domenici said: This amendment would with specificity say that any reconciliation bill containing provisions with respect to Social Security would be subject to a point of order. That is what this amendment does. That is what Senators said when they adopted a prohibition on using the fast-track reconciliation process to make changes in Social Security. That is why all those Senators supported excluding Social Security from the fast-track reconciliation process, and I argue that all the same arguments apply today as well. Let us prevent Social Security from being cut in a fast-track commission process. Let us keep America's commitment to our seniors. I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment to protect Social Security. I might also say, Social Security is not the cause of our deficit problem. Social Security is running surpluses. For years into the future, Social Security is going to run surpluses. Social Security, thus, reduces the current unified budget deficit. Social Security is not the reason for our fiscal problem. Furthermore, over the longer term, Social Security is growing with the rate of growth in the economy. Social Security is growing more slowly than health care expenditures. Social Security is not the primary source of long-term fiscal imbalance--all the more reason, I submit, why my amendment should be adopted.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I have further correspondence which I wish to read into the Record with respect to my amendment which is pending, as well as with respect to statements by organizations that essentially oppose the Conrad-Gregg amendment. The first is from the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations. It is entitled, ``Proposed Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action.'' It says: Dear Representative: The Leadership Council of Aging Organizations (LCAO) is a coalition of national not-for- profit organizations focused on the well-being of America's 87 million older adults. Today, we write to you and your colleagues regarding recent efforts to create a commission that would force changes to entitlement programs, among other things, through the use of a Congressional fast-track procedure. We firmly believe that Congress, through its regular legislative process, is best suited to consider and address any changes to these programs. While we have additional concerns regarding the use of such a commission on Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security income, community service and Federal civilian military retirement programs, this letter is directly focused on Social Security. The LCAO will be sending, under separate cover, a letter devoted to expressing its concerns with the impact a fast-tracked commission would have on Medicare and Medicaid. Last month's Budget Committee hearing on Bipartisan Process Proposals for Long-Term Fiscal Stability considered the creation of a commission that would be tasked with addressing rising Federal debt by ``closing the gap between tax revenue coming in and the larger cost of paying for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.'' This is a weighty responsibility, requiring careful review of these critical social programs on which so many depend. But there is no guarantee that the members of this commission would have the necessary expertise to conduct such an intensive review. That is very valid. How would this commission know how to make those cuts? They don't have expertise on the programs. This would be an outfit that just cuts without having any sense as to how these programs operate and what changes might be made. Continuing to quote from the letter: Our concern is that their recommendations, nevertheless, would be forced through Congress, without amendment(s), under extremely short timelines and with no opportunity to debate individual issues or consult with constituents. In addition to our objections about the proposed commission process, we are concerned that its mission would imply that Social Security has somehow contributed to the Nation's economic woes. Social Security is not a part of the deficit problem nor is it part of an ``entitlement crisis.'' Its cost is projected to consume only 6.2% of GDP by 2030 and to remain slightly below that level for 50 more years. In fact, the 2009 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees pointed out that Social Security ran a surplus of $180 billion last year and had accumulated a reserve of $2.4 trillion. That is a reserve, a surplus, of $2.4 trillion. The most recent projections of the Congressional Budget Office forecast that Social Security will continue to pay full benefits until 2043. That is a surplus at least until the year 2043. Moreover, Social Security, with its dependable, guaranteed benefits, is the very program that helped us most recently avoid a 1930s-style depression. Again, I am reading from the letter from the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations. Continuing: Even as the banking and financial systems threatened to collapse, Social Security continued to provide a reliable economic lifeline to millions of children, disabled workers, retired workers, and spouses (including widowed and divorced spouses) dependent on those benefits. These benefits helped to offset lost earnings and stimulated the economy by maintaining purchasing power. According to a recent study by the National Academy of Social Insurance and Benenson Strategy Group, nearly nine in ten (88%) Americans say that Social Security is more important than ever as a result of today's economic crisis. Social Security remains the bedrock of retirement security for over 33 million older Americans: On average, households with Social Security beneficiaries aged 65 and older received about 64 percent of their income from the program in 2006. It then gives a reference in parenthesis. The reference is in the letter. Additionally, Social Security provides a lifeline to 4.1 million children, 7.7 million disabled workers, 2.4 million spouses or divorced spouses of retired workers and 4.4 million surviving spouses. The importance and value of Social Security to so many Americans demands that proposals to change the program be given the due weight, consideration and debate in Congress that they deserve. With this in mind, the undersigned members of the LCAO oppose the creation of a fast-track entitlements commission. I am going to read some of the signatories to this letter: AFL-CIO, AFSCME Retirees, Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, American Society on Aging, Association of Jewish Aging Services of North America, B'Nai B'Rrith International, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., Gray Panthers, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; Military Officers Association of America, National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, National Alliance for Caregiving, National Asian Pacific Center on Aging, National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, National Association of Professional Geriatric Care Managers, National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc., National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Council on Aging, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, OWL, The Voice of Midlife and Older Women, Service Employees International Union, the Jewish Federations of North America, Volunteers of America, Wider Opportunities For Women. I think that letter speaks for itself, but I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I might also add that there is another letter I have. I have referred to this organization already, but I will read their letter. This is from OWL, the Voice of Midlife and Older Women: Dear President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid: We, the undersigned, urge you to preserve and protect two of the most important and successful government programs in the history of the United States--Social Security and Medicare. We ask that you resist the pressure by Wall Street and conservative members of Congress to form an undemocratic and unaccountable fast-track ``deficit commission'' that would cut these programs that are so crucial to the well- being of the people of our country. Social Security is not responsible for any part of the deficit. The 2009 Annual Report from the Board of Trustees stated that Social Security ran a surplus of $180 billion last year with a reserve of $2.4 trillion. That is a reserve of $2.4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office, in its August 2009 forecast, said that full benefits can continue to be paid until 2043. There is ample time to make the necessary adjustments through the usual legislative process. The best way to get the cost of Medicare under control is by reforming the health care system as you are currently trying to do, not by cutting benefits to the millions of people whose health is at stake. That is a very important point. Let me just read it again because it is so true: The best way to get the cost of Medicare under control is by reforming the health care system . . . rather than by cutting benefits to millions of people whose health is at stake. Continuing in the letter: There are many ways to cut the deficit--once our economy has recovered. In the meantime, Social Security and Medicare provide a measure of economic stability during a time of financial crisis in our communities. As Frances Perkins said on the 25th anniversary of Social Security, ``We will go forward into the future, a stronger nation because of the fact that we have this basic rock of security under all our people.'' In 2010, we'll celebrate the 75th anniversary of Social Security. We urge you to stand firm against the proposal for a fast- track commission that would diminish these programs that speak so deeply of America's values. Respectfully yours. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we anticipate the Senator from North Dakota will join us momentarily. Pending his arrival, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota makes a very compelling case for fiscal discipline. He has been making this case for a good number of years. He has been on the forefront in urging us in the Congress and the country to be more disciplined, to get better control of these deficits, and I appreciate the work of the Senator from North Dakota. I might say we have no disagreement whatsoever that we need to address our fiscal challenge. We totally agree. I think most Members of the body would agree that is not the issue. Whether we must address the fiscal challenge or not is not the issue. So I wish to get that off the table. We all know we have a huge problem facing us, and it must be dealt with. What we do disagree about, though, is the process; that is, how we address it. I will have a lot more to say about that later today, but I see the Senator from Arizona on the floor, and he has been waiting patiently.

Mr. BAUCUS. Certainly. Amendment No. 3302 to Amendment No. 3299 (Purpose: To establish a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic security of the Federal Government of the United States, and to expand future prosperity and growth for all Americans)

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I oppose the Conrad-Gregg amendment. This amendment would set up a new deficit reduction commission and have its recommendations considered and sent to the House under expedited parliamentary procedures. This amendment invites Congress to abdicate its responsibility. This amendment is fundamentally unfair to many of our constituents across the country. This amendment should be defeated. Under the Conrad-Gregg proposal, 18 people would make recommendations on how to reduce projected midterm and long-term Federal budget deficits. Of the 18 members, 16 would be Members of Congress, and two would be officials in the administration. I might add, if some think the Congress cannot do this, why is this composed almost entirely of Members of Congress? Recommendations of this 18-member commission would be made the subject of votes in both Chambers with no amendments allowed. Thus, the entire package of recommendations would be given to Congress on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. If the Conrad-Gregg amendment were enacted, Members of Congress who were not on the commission would have no say in the development of the commission's recommendations. Members of Congress who were not on the commission would have no ability to change the recommendations. We would have to vote on the entire package on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. If Members of Congress not on the commission found that they favored most of the recommendations but positively abhorred a few of them, they would be given no opportunity to try to change the ones to which they objected. Their choice would be either to vote for no deficit reduction at all or vote for recommendations that they abhor with no way to change them. Members of Congress should not be put in that position. This amendment would disenfranchise the overwhelming majority of Members of Congress. It would disenfranchise their constituents. This would be fundamentally unfair to their constituents and to them. We should not allow it to happen. Let me say a few words about the effects of this commission on Social Security and Medicare. If we create this commission, what is to stop it from making further reductions in Medicare spending beyond the changes in the health care reform bill? Although the health care reform bill would reduce some reimbursements to providers, it would not cut Medicare benefits or eligibility one bit, but the commission could recommend cuts in Medicare benefits and eligibility. I might say, too, the Congressional Budget Office, I remind my colleagues, estimated that the health care reform bill that passed this body would reduce the budget deficit by $132 billion over 10 years and further reduce the budget deficit by between $650 billion to $1.3 trillion in the next 10 years. What about Social Security? Some people talk as if Social Security is a major factor in the long-run budget deficits, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's projections of the 75-year growth of spending on Medicare-Medicaid and Social Security tells a different story. As a share of the economy, the growth of Medicare and Medicaid spending before enactment of health care reform is more than seven times the growth of Social Security spending. If we are to reduce the projections of interim and long-term projections of deficit, we should use the regular order of Congress to do so, and for a good reason; that is, because the system is already working. The comprehensive health reform bill awaiting final approval by the House and Senate is solid evidence the system is working. Once again, the Congressional Budget Office projected--I made the point just a few moments ago--the Federal deficits would be reduced by $132 billion in the first 10 years and by $650 billion to $1.3 trillion in the second 10 years. That is a significant reduction. The deficit reduction will make a substantial dent in the deficits-- and it has been accomplished entirely through the regular order. We were able to cut deficits through the regular order. It would thus be ironic to give up on the regular order just when it has such a promising result. There is more work to be done to reduce deficits in the midterm and long term, but the regular order is up to the job of performing these tasks. We should not give up on it prematurely. We should vote against creating a commission that can take away many of the responsibilities the Constitution gave the Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It has also been said on the Senate floor that one way to get revenue is to go after the so-called gap that exists between revenue that is owed the American taxpayers but not collected--the tax gap, it is sometimes called. I might say why not create a tax gap commission? It does not make sense for this outfit, if it does exist--I don't think it will because I think most Members of Congress will not want to do that--to cut Social Security, which is not the problem--Social Security is projected to be in surplus at least to the year 2043--or to make further cuts in Medicare beyond which we have already done in regular order. What is left? Discretionary spending. If the real effort is a tax gap, let's have a tax gap commission, not one that is going to cut Medicare and Medicaid. I might add, these people, if there were such a commission, are not qualified. They do not understand the health care system. They don't understand where to make cuts and not to make cuts. They don't understand Social Security that much. The committees of jurisdiction do. They don't understand some of the other programs where they might recommend cuts. They can just whack, whack, whack, or raise revenue. They don't understand the Tax Code. That is not their expertise. They are just going to try to find ways to raise, raise, raise taxes. It is something on the surface that might sort of sound good--let somebody else do it. I cannot do it, so we will let somebody else do it. I think that is an abdication of responsibility. I think it is like it sounds--too good to be true--that somebody else is going to do it. It is like the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Why do we run for these jobs? Each of us ought to be a U.S. Senator because we wanted to take the responsibility to do what we thought was right for our people and our States. It is sometimes not very easy. It is sometimes quite difficult. That is why we ran. That is what goes with the territory: step up and make the right decisions and do what needs to be done in conjunction with the President. The President of the United States is going to make a budget recommendation to the Congress in just a matter of a few days, almost a week or so away. That is the job of the President, to make a recommendation to the Congress of what he thinks our budget should be, and it is up to the Congress to decide how to deal with that. We have used the regular order on health care to cut budget deficits by a large amount. As I indicated, it worked. I think we should just be courageous enough as Members of Congress to do what is right, step up and do what we have to do. If we do not do the job properly, our voters will get somebody else to do the job. That is their right, that is their privilege, and that is one of the strengths of the process: that they have an opportunity to get somebody else if we are not doing a good job. I strongly urge the defeat of the Conrad-Gregg amendment. It is just not a good thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Under the previous order, I believe the Senator from New Hampshire is to have the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would say we are expecting the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, to arrive shortly, and when he does, I will yield to him. I wish to also respond, briefly, to the Senator from New Hampshire and start by talking about where we agree. I think it is almost always good, when discussing something, for people to look at where there is agreement. Where there is agreement, it builds trust and understanding and, therefore, when possible, there can be even greater agreement. We, clearly, agree it is unhealthy for the government to be running these huge deficits. I think everyone in this body agrees on that point. It is unsustainable, as many have said. But why are we running these big deficits? We are doing so, frankly, because of mistakes made during the financial crisis prompted by the subprime mortgage crisis and also because we have been in a fairly deep recession. That is why these deficits are so large. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. It was something, unfortunately, that had to be done. We had to come up with some money to help provide some economic stability for this country. After that, as we know, when we are in a recession, unemployment payments are higher and Medicaid payments are higher and a lot of other programs are automatically higher because we enact programs on top of that to help the economy. That is why we are facing these huge deficits. They have grown very significantly in the last several years for those reasons. So there is no disagreement that, A, we have large deficits, and, B, we have to begin to reduce those deficits. I think there is agreement as to why we came to this place and have these deficits, which are for the reasons I suggested. We also very much agree that we have to reduce these deficits in future years. There is tremendous agreement on that point. We also agree it would be better for the government to reduce our annual deficits to below 3 percent of gross domestic product. There is agreement on that. Most economic observers and experts think that once our deficits reach 3 percent of gross domestic product, that is not so bad. It is going to take a little effort to get there. But, again, we are where we are because of the recession and because of the financial crisis that occurred in the last several years. Where we disagree, though, is over the way we respond. We disagree over the powers the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to turn over to somebody else--over to a commission. We disagree on that point. I don't think we should turn the power that Senators and House Members have over to some other body to do something called an entitlements commission. The Senator from New Hampshire proposes to create such a procedure to protect Senators, frankly, from being attacked for the decisions they make. That is what this is all about, in some respects, to turn this decisionmaking over to somebody else so Senators can say: They did it. They made me do it. He and the Senator from North Dakota proposed a commission, for example, with a fast-track process that would absolve Senators from responsibility for any amendments. Senators could then throw up their hands and say: The commission made me do it. It sounds as if all of us parents heard something similar from our kids: Daddy, Mommy, something made me do it. I will never forget that many years ago, my son said: Daddy, it just seemed so good. Somebody else suggested the idea, and that made me do it. I couldn't say no. But on matters as important as Social Security for seniors, on matters as important as Medicare and Medicaid for Americans that have health concerns, on matters as important as the tax rates the government will impose on American families--on those important matters, I think we need an open process where Senators and House Members participate and offer suggestions and offer amendments. On things that important, I do not think we need a procedural shortcut. Sometimes the most important things are difficult to do. I think most Members of Congress and the Senate who ran for these jobs expected there would be some tough choices, there would be some tough times. I don't think they want procedural shortcuts because with procedural shortcuts, often there are unintended consequences. With procedural shortcuts, often bad things happen, when it is not thought through in advance. Rather, we should have full and open debate. There are fewer surprises with full and open debate when Senators can amend and improve the product, and that is why I believe the Conrad-Gregg commission is a bad idea. There are alternatives to that proposal. One is that we do it ourselves, we do what we should do, and we do it the right way. But there is also another alternative, an alternative which the President and Vice President--especially the Vice President is working on that sets up an executive commission, not a statutory commission as outlined by the Senators from New Hampshire and North Dakota but, rather, one on which the Vice President has convened a series of discussions, and in that proposal the Vice President has proposed an Executive order where the President would create a commission to consider our fiscal situation. It would also have similar composition, similar powers. It is similar to the statutory commission offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg, but there is only one difference, and that difference is in the process. The Vice President's proposal, which I think the President will announce fairly shortly, would preserve the rules of the Senate. The Gregg-Conrad amendment would not. And it is preserving the rules of the Senate that I think makes all the difference. Under the proposal that I think will be offered by the President, that is, the executive commission, again, I think it is 18 members, all subjects are considered, and they will report back to the Congress, I think after the election. So everything is very similar, if not exactly the same. The only difference is, under the executive commission, if it is proposed--I think it will be--there is no requirement of a fast- track process as required by the statutory commission. I tell my colleagues there are other alternatives, there are other ways to address our huge budget deficits. I urge my colleagues to join in support for the Vice President's efforts and oppose the Conrad-Gregg amendment. I understand the Senator from Connecticut is not here. Maybe the Senator wants to proceed? Oh, he is here. Does the Senator from South Dakota wish to proceed?

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for a question at that point?

Mr. BAUCUS. Would the Senator yield on that point since he is raising the subject?

Mr. BAUCUS. Didn't that same CBO letter also say the health care bill that passed the Senate would reduce the budget deficit? The Senator is throwing out these huge figures--it is going to cost $2 trillion and so on and so forth. I don't know where the Senator got that figure because the Congressional Budget Office, in that same letter or a similar letter--either that letter, in an earlier letter, or in a subsequent letter--reaffirmed that the bill passed in the Senate cuts the budget deficit by $132 billion the first 10 years and cuts the budget deficit by between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion in the next 10 years. That is what the letter says. The Actuary said the bill extends the life of the Medicare trust fund I think 5 or 6 more years--maybe more than that. Isn't it true that CBO letter said that the Senate bill reduces the budget deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years and reduces it in the second 10 years by between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion? Isn't that true?

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield? This double-counting, frankly, is a bogus issue. It kind of sounds good on its face, but it is meant to confuse people. But even subsequent to that statement about the double-counting, even subsequent to that, is it not true that CBO came out with a subsequent letter that said still the budget deficit is reduced by $132 billion in the first 10 years and $650 billion to $1.3 trillion in the next 10 years?

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a vote in relation to the Thune amendment No. 3301 and that the provisions of the order of December 22 regarding the vote threshold remain in effect and no intervening amendment be in order.

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 consent to execute the order of December 22, 2009, with respect to H.J. Res. 45.

Mr. BAUCUS. Pursuant to the previous order, on behalf of the majority leader, I have a substitute amendment at the desk which I now call up.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Ralph Waldo Emerson enjoined: Pay every debt as if God wrote the bill. Today, we will debate whether the United States continues to pay its bills. We will debate whether the United States will continue to pay the interest it owes on the money it has borrowed. The spending laws that created the current national debt are behind us. The only question that remains is whether the government will honor its obligation to pay the bill. We have gone to the restaurant, we have eaten the meal, the waiter has delivered the check, and now the only question is whether we will pay the check. To state the question is to answer it: We simply must do so. We must pay the check for the bill, for the restaurant, for the meal we have eaten. The legislation before us would increase the limit on the amount of money the U.S. Treasury can borrow. If Congress does not enact this legislation, and soon, then the Treasury would default on its debt for the first time in history. If Congress does not enact this legislation, then the government would fail to pay the benefits to a portion of Social Security recipients, the Government would fail to pay benefits to a portion of the beneficiaries of all other Federal programs. That plainly would be unacceptable, and plainly we must enact this legislation. When the Federal budget runs a deficit, the U.S. Treasury must borrow money to make up the difference. In language around here, we call it the shortfall. That shortfall results from laws enacted in the past that spent money and cut taxes. If we want to avoid the need to borrow, then Congress and the President must enact laws that will cause the Federal Government to spend less money or raise more revenue in the future. Simply preventing the Treasury from borrowing more money is not the solution. If Congress does not allow the Treasury to borrow more money, then the Treasury will not have the money to pay its bills. The Treasury has no legal authority to prioritize spending and pay only the most important bills. They do not have that authority. If the bills are due, they are due. The Treasury does not even have a way to determine which are the most important bills. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the Treasury would have to pay bills on a first-come, first-served basis. Some of these bills would be interest payments on previously borrowed money. If the Treasury does not pay these interest payments, then the Federal Government would default on its financial obligations. That would be the first time in the history of the country. If that were to happen, financial entities would be afraid to loan the Treasury money. They would charge astronomically higher interest rates. This would only worsen already high budget deficits. In some situations, the financial entities would not loan us money at all. This could prevent the Federal Government from meeting all of its programmatic commitments, but the disastrous economic effects would go well beyond that. The price of Treasury securities in the secondary markets would drop. This would cause an immense wealth loss for owners of assets in many other financial markets. This, in turn, would cause untold damage in those markets and further worsen the recession. What is more, the value of the dollar could drop even further. This would increase inflation in the United States. It could well end the dollar's role as the reserve currency of the world, further exposing the American economy to global economic forces beyond our control. In addition to paying interest costs, the Treasury pays many other important bills. Among those bills are Social Security benefits. If Congress does not raise the debt limit, then Social Security benefits would have to compete for funding on a first-come, first-served basis with all other Federal payments. If Social Security payments did not come up for funding first, then they would not be paid. Clearly, we should not let this happen either. The conclusion is simple. We must raise the debt ceiling. Federal budget deficits are at record highs. Why is that? The reasons are simple. We have been and still are in the deepest recession since the Great Depression. We have been in an unprecedented financial crisis. The current administration inherited those problems. How have these problems contributed to record deficits, we might ask? Well, first, the recession directly affects the Federal budget. The recession has caused revenues to fall to record lows. Since 1970, the Federal Government has collected an average 18 percent of the gross domestic product in tax revenues. That is since 1970. In 2009, however, revenues accounted for only 14.9 percent of GDP, a drop of more than 3 percent. Meanwhile, the recession has required much greater sums to be spent on unemployment benefits and on Medicaid payments. Second, Congress has had to pass legislation to fight the recession. We needed to enact a large stimulus package to foster economic growth. The package Congress enacted provided stimulus of about $185 billion in fiscal year 2009, and it is estimated to provide stimulus of about $400 billion in fiscal year 2010. This package has done some good--not perfect, but it has done some good. It helped prevent a deeper recession. It has significantly increased economic growth. Regrettably, the package has not produced enough jobs yet. The Finance Committee and other committees will be looking at additional options to increase job growth as soon as we can turn to them. But let's be clear. If Congress had not enacted the stimulus package, then the country would be in a depression instead of a recession. The stimulus package was the right thing to do. Third, as a result of the financial crisis, the Bush administration asked for and Congress gave legal authority under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP. TARP gave the President authority to help financial institutions, as well as the struggling automotive industry, to weather the financial storm. The Bush administration was using these authorities before the Obama administration took office. So the recession and financial crisis created needs that, in turn, led to high deficits and record borrowing. How do we reduce such commitments for the future? They are too high. We have to stop. We have to do something about all this. How do we avoid having to borrow such huge sums of money in the future? First, we have to fix our health care system. The current health care system has led to skyrocketing costs in Medicare and Medicaid. To reduce those costs for the long run, we need to pass comprehensive health care reform. That is a good first step to get that deficit under control. That is exactly what we are doing. In late December, the Senate passed health care reform. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, our health care reform bill reduced the Federal deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years. Let me say that again. According to the CBO, this health care regulation will reduce the Federal deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years--not increase but reduce. That helps. The bill would reduce Federal deficits by $650 billion to $1.3 trillion in the second 10 years; that is, in the second 10 years, there is a much greater reduction in deficit spending, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, a reduction of between $650 billion to $1.3 trillion, a reduction in the Federal deficit in the second 10 years. This deficit reduction is likely to continue in subsequent decades. Second, after we do all that, after we do all we can do to increase job growth, we need to start working on deficit reduction for the coming decade and also subsequent decades. Because the economy was in a deep recession and the financial markets were frozen, the government borrowed a lot of money. Once the recession is over, we have to reduce borrowing to a fiscally responsible level, and we should begin doing that as soon as we can. But in the meantime, we cannot allow the Nation to default on its debt. We cannot allow benefits from programs such as Social Security to be paid on a first-come, first-served basis. No one enjoys raising the debt limit. Nobody. It is not something that is a lot of fun to do. No one enjoys paying debts either, but it is simply what we must do to honor our commitments. There were times when the Senate joined together in recognition that we have this obligation as a joint obligation. Four times in the last 26 years, the Senate has raised the debt limit by unanimous consent. Let me repeat that. Four times in the last 26 years, the Senate has raised the debt limit by unanimous consent. The Senate did so as recently as 1996, under a Republican Senate and a Democratic President. The Senate did so by unanimous consent three times in the 1980s, twice under a Democratic Senate and Republican President. It has been more than 17 years since the Senate last divided strictly along party lines on a debt-limit vote. We have raised the debt limit a dozen times since then. Honoring the Nation's obligations should not be a partisan matter, and usually it is not. It has until recently not been a practice of the minority in the Senate to filibuster debt limit increases. Under President George W. Bush, the Senate raised the debt limit four times, with simple majorities, with fewer than 60 votes. The Senate did so twice under President Reagan as well. All but four sitting Senators have voted for a debt limit increase at one time or another in their careers. Among sitting Senators who have served in more than one Congress, only one Senator has never voted for a debt limit increase. So I call upon my colleagues to rise to the occasion. Let us pay our debts. Let us honor our obligations. Let us allow the debt limit to be raised. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on another matter which is topical and tragic and which is on the minds of Americans and people all over the world today, I rise to share a few remarks involving the overwhelming disaster that has hit Haiti. Words do not begin to describe the extent of the disaster--thousands dead, more than 1 million homeless. Just imagine how bad it is. It is almost impossible to imagine. Families continue to search and mourn for lost mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and sons and daughters. The earthquake may be the most lethal disaster to ever occur in the Western Hemisphere. This is not a disaster on some distant shore. Haiti is closer to Florida, for example, than the distance from one end to the other of my State of Montana. I am encouraged by the outpouring of help from around the world. Many have flown to volunteer. Others have helped through in-kind contributions, cash. In fact, I recently heard that a vast number of people responded on the Internet through Blackberry and Twitter to give contributions. It is a huge number--not individually large, but the total is a massive outpouring of support. Americans have shown remarkable generosity. These are tough economic times, but millions still want to give. This is the American spirit. It is who we are as Americans. Amidst this destruction and great sorrow, there are stories that offer incredible hope. Maxine Fallon, a 23-year-old student, was buried for 6 days without food or water. She was buried deep in the rubble which was once her university. She sent text messages pleading for help. A search-and-rescue team rescued her from the ruins of her cratered school. Since arriving, rescue teams from the United States and other countries have saved more than 75 victims from the rubble. As Americans, we rise to aid our friends and neighbors who are in need. There is no people in greater need right now than the people of Haiti. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Fifty- four percent of the population lives on less than a dollar a day. With so many struggling to survive, the earthquake's swift destruction must be met with a response equally forceful and rapid. I propose we pass legislation as soon as possible called the Haiti Assistance Income Tax Incentive Act or simply the HAITI Act. The HAITI Act will allow U.S. taxpayers to make charitable contributions to Haiti relief programs until March 1, 2010, and claim those contributions on their 2009 income tax returns. The proposal is similar to legislation that passed unanimously in 2005, following the tsunami disaster along the Indian Ocean. The HAITI Act is a bipartisan bill I am introducing with Senator Grassley and several other Senators. The same language passed the House of Representatives earlier today. This is simple legislation that would make a big impact. It will make it a little easier for Americans to contribute to the victims of the Haiti disaster. Frankly, most Americans want to contribute anyway. The American Red Cross and UNICEF's United States Fund raised about $7.3 million in donations over a 4-hour period while a Larry King Live special on Haiti aired. But the relief and rebuilding effort in Haiti will require billions and will take a long time. This legislation is an additional incentive for Americans to contribute to that effort. As search and rescue efforts give way to building, these donations will ensure that our efforts have a lasting impact. While we must do what we can to provide relief now, the people of Haiti will need our help for many years to come. This is not just a 1- week, 1-month, several-month effort. Trade programs such as the HOPE and HOPE II Acts provide an opportunity to create new jobs in Haiti's export sector. As the people of Haiti work to rebuild what was destroyed, I will continue to work to provide generous access to the U.S. market for products produced in Haiti. The suffering in Haiti is heartbreaking and the generosity in response to the Haiti earthquake is a reflection of the American spirit. Today I stand with the people of Haiti and I ask my colleagues in the Senate to stand with me. Let's pass the HAITI Act and let's do everything we can to help those who have lost so much in this terrible disaster.