Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I reserve the right to have somebody else speak following the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, frankly, I think the fundamental question facing us is, Are we going to pay our bills? That is the question before us today. On the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota, I suspect the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, will have something to say about that when we come back into session tomorrow. But the fundamental question we are facing with the debt limit extension resolution is, Are we going to pay our bills? We have incurred obligations. We have, as a country. Are we going to pay them? Are we going to pay our bills? That is the basic question. Are we going to live up to our commitment to pay our bills? The discussion here quite correctly is somewhat--not correctly. The subject has moved over to, well, gee, aren't our deficits too high? Haven't we been spending too much compared with the revenue we are taking in? Yes. There is no one here who would argue the point that our deficits are too high. That is right. They are what they are partly because of the recession we are in, the subprime mortgage crisis that somewhat prompted all the problems we face as a country, a lot of loose lending by lots of institutions, packaging of obligations, of loans, and securitizing those loans, all the fees earned by banks and so forth. Pretty soon, all the mortgages became if not worthless, at least not worth very much at all. Our country consequently faced a recession by and large because of a lot of loose financial thinking in the last couple of years, beginning with the subprime mortgage crisis. We are where we are. We are trying to work ourselves out of the recession. But the basic question is, Are we going to pay the debts we obligated? Are we going to live up to our commitments? The Senator from New Hampshire, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, quite correctly talked about our deficits being too high. He raised the prospect of, gee, maybe fairly soon various countries are going to charge us more on the debt we are borrowing, may want to charge a premium because they wonder if they can trust the obligation of the United States to pay its debts. I don't know whether that is true. I don't know when that may or may not be true. That is a very speculative question. We just do not know. A lot of people have very formed opinions on that point. But I do know something that is absolutely true, over which there is no debate; that is, if we default on our debts, then we are going to find the economy is going to collapse. I do know that as a fact. Every Member of this body knows that to be a fact. We must extend the debt limit so we can pay our debts. That is pretty simple. In the meantime, as a Congress, clearly we have to work to get these deficits under control. We have to do both, frankly. We have to extend the debt limit so we can pay our debts. If we do not raise it, we cannot pay our debts. So we have to raise it. In addition, we have to work at getting these deficits under control. There is no doubt about that. Frankly, one good way to get deficits under control is to pass health care reform. The Congressional Budget Office, which we all think is doing a pretty good job even though they frustrate us a lot--by and large we agree with their conclusions--the Congressional Budget Office has said the health care bill that passed the Senate would reduce the deficits by $132 billion over the first 10 years. That is a reduction in deficits. That is going to help reduce the deficits. So all this talk--it is very proper talk--about the size of our deficits will be slightly less urgent once we start reducing the budget deficit. I am not one to stand up here and say health care reform is the total solution. I am only saying it reduces the budget deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by $132 billion over the first 10 years. They go even further and say that the next 10 years the health care reform bill that passed the Senate will reduce the Federal deficit by between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion--reduce the Federal deficit by between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion. Now we are talking real money. Now we are talking about a more-than-significant reduction in the deficit. I heard some numbers flying around here several minutes ago about it costs $2 trillion and this and that. That is not true. That is not what the Congressional Budget Office says. The Congressional Budget Office says, as I mentioned, a $132 billion reduction in the deficits in the first 10 years and between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion in deficit reduction in the second 10 years. That is what CBO says. I don't know where the Senator gets his numbers, but he did not get them from CBO. CBO's conclusions are as I have stated. I urge us, frankly, to keep our heads screwed on straight and our feet on the ground. Let's decide what we have to do, and that is we have to pay our national debt and then go on and find ways to reduce the budget deficits. I think all of us can agree that is something we have to do. To default on our national debt is certainly no way to run a government. We are supposed to be responsible people around here. Clearly, it would be irresponsible for us to not act in a way that prevents a default on our obligations. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am going to speak a little bit about the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, cosponsored by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. It has not been offered yet. I am not totally certain it will be offered. I think it will be offered. I am going to speak on the amendment now, but if we are ready to enter a unanimous consent agreement as to the proceedings of the Senate tonight and tomorrow, I will stop my presentation so we can enter that order. As I said, under the previous order, the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, proposing a fiscal task force is in order to the pending measure. Yesterday evening, the Vice President met with a number of interested parties, including our colleague, the Senate majority leader, the Speaker, the Senator from North Dakota, and others. I was at that meeting. Yesterday evening, that group discussed a fiscal commission to be created by an Executive order. I want to distinguish that effort, that is, that effort for the President to create a commission by an Executive order, from the amendment the Senators from North Dakota and New Hampshire propose on the bill. I support the President's efforts to create a commission by Executive order, and I oppose the amendment to be proposed by the Senators from North Dakota and New Hampshire. The difference is that the Executive order would preserve the Senate's regular order. The amendment, on the other hand, would create a fast-track procedure to short-circuit the Senate's regular order. Let me take this opportunity to share with my colleagues what a number of respected groups have been saying about the Conrad-Gregg amendment. On January 14, the chief executive officer of AARP wrote to Senators about the Conrad-Gregg commission. As my colleagues know, AARP is the nonpartisan membership organization that represents 40 million people age 50 and older. AARP is the Nation's largest membership organization for people 50 and over and has offices in all 50 States. Listen to what AARP says: We urge you to vote against an amendment to be offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg to establish a fiscal task force and to instead focus on addressing the challenges of the nation's long-term debt through regular order . . . AARP goes on: We oppose providing fast-track authority to a task force that will function with limited accountability outside the regular order of Congress, and with an exclusive focus on debt reduction. . . . Quoting further, AARP says: AARP believes the issues that the fiscal task force is meant to address--including the revenue gap, health care costs and the long-term solvency of Social Security--are among the most fundamental challenges we face as a nation. As such, they are issues Congress itself, through its regular order, should tackle. AARP recognizes that doing things the normal way is not always easy. Quoting again, AARP says: We recognize that these issues test regular order, as has been demonstrated by the long and difficult debate surrounding health care reform. Simply because these issues are difficult to address is not reason enough to abdicate the responsibility Congress has to act. However, an open debate is essential in a representative democracy to resolve issues that have as broad and deep an impact on its citizenry as changes to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the tax system. AARP focuses on the human costs. Quoting further, AARP says: . . . a task force that is directed to identify proposals to restore the nation's long-term balance sheet cannot do so without regard to the impact its recommendations would have on individuals. Broad, deep cuts to the nation's health and economic security pillars--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--could reduce long-term debt, but would do so by shifting significant burdens and risks to older Americans and millions of others who rely on these benefits. AARP recommends in particular that Social Security be excluded from the commission's deliberations. AARP says: We 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. That is true. It is very true. Social Security does not contribute to the annual deficit. It does not. And if one looks at the long-term prospect of Social Security, it is in healthy shape for 25, 50 years. It does not add in any way significantly to the national debt. Here is how AARP concludes its letter. AARP says: Given the significance of Social Security and Medicare to the well-being of nearly all Americans, AARP believes a full and open debate is essential to ensuring the development of balanced solutions. As such, we oppose any legislative proposals that bypass or short circuit the protections afforded by regular order . . . to reach debt reduction goals. That is what AARP writes, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full text of AARP's letter to Senators.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, AARP is by no means alone in taking these positions. On January 7, Barbara Kennelly, our former congressional colleague and now president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, wrote to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing millions of members and supporters nationwide. For more than 26 years, the organization has fought for the interests of older Americans. Here is what the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare says: The National Committee strongly opposes the fiscal commission legislation authored by Senators Conrad and Gregg. The national committee also focused on Social Security, arguing that it is inappropriate for such a commission, and 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. Turning to the specifics of the Conrad-Gregg commission, the national committee wrote: The legislation would effectively remove nearly every government program, including the Federal tax system, from the legislative jurisdiction of Congress. By fast-tracking the commission's recommendations through Congress with no allowance for amendments, the Conrad-Gregg measure would prevent Congress from exercising its legislative responsibilities with respect to Social Security. Enacting legislation that would push through changes of this importance to millions of Americans, especially seniors, without the opportunity for members of an elected Congress to amend them, ultimately disenfranchises the public and undermines the legitimacy of the political process. Later in the letter, the national committee wrote: The National Committee strongly believes that decisions relating to complex or essential programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and taxes should be made through the regular legislative committee process. Such a process allows each program to be considered separately by substantive experts based on program solvency and policy goals. That is what the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare writes, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full text of the letter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as well, on January 13, the president, secretary-treasurer, and executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans sent a letter to all Senators on the Conrad-Gregg commission. The Alliance for Retired Americans is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing retired union members. They wrote: The Alliance for Retired Americans, on behalf of its nearly four million members throughout the nation, writes in opposition to the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2009, S. 2853. We oppose attempts to attach it to debt ceiling or any other legislation. We cannot support the bill's fast-track means of implementing vast changes to programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid outside the regular legislative process. The alliance talked about how the process would work, and they wrote: Under the legislation, the jurisdiction for major long-term changes to programs including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would be turned over to an 18-member task force, made up of 16 members of Congress and 2 administration officials. Then the alliance wrote about what is wrong with the process, and here is what they wrote: Regardless of the expertise of task force members, their representations would be crafted behind closed doors and subject to a fast-track up-or-down vote by Congress. Forcing changes to these critical benefit programs by eliminating open debate or amendments is an undemocratic way to address the future of such programs. The alliance contrasted the new task force process with the existing committee process, and here is what they wrote: Currently, congressional committees of jurisdiction consider changes and improvements to these vital programs with the opportunity for due consideration and debate. These committees, with their broad-based and detailed knowledge of the programs under their jurisdiction, are the proper forums for considering any changes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The alliance concluded: We strongly caution against a process that would bypass the regular legislative process in favor of an expedited, fast- track process that leaves room for little accountability and almost no room for input from the American people. That is what the Alliance for Retired Americans writes, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full text of the letter from the Alliance for Retired Americans.

Mr. BAUCUS. What is more, on January 12, a broad consortium of organizations--56 in number--wrote to all Senators to express their concerns with the Conrad-Gregg commission. Among the organizations signing this letter were the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Change to Win, the Campaign for America's Future, Common Cause, moveon.org Political Action, NAACP, the National Organization for Women, People for the American Way, the SCIU, and many others. This broad consortium of organizations wrote: We write with strong opposition to the proposal of Senators Kent Conrad, Judd Gregg and others to create a deficit- reduction commission to override the normal legislative process and replace it with expedited procedures prohibiting amendments and limiting debate. If the Conrad-Gregg proposal were to become law, it could dramatically change by stealth critical benefits and services so vital to America's families. The consortium of groups continued about the need for responsibility by writing: Americans--seniors, women, working families, people with disabilities, youth, young adults, children, people of color, veterans, communities of faith and others--expect their elected representatives to be responsible and accountable for shaping such a significant, far-reaching legislation. The consortium of groups continued about the problems with the commission, and here is what they said: The American people are likely to view any kind of expedited procedure, where most members are sidelined to a single take-it-or-leave-it vote, as a hidden process aimed at eviscerating vital programs and productive investment. The consortium of groups once again focused on problems with allowing the budget commission to change Social Security. They wrote: An American public that only recently rejected privatization of Social Security would 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 consortium of groups concluded: We urge you to act decisively to prevent the creation of such an extraordinary and undemocratic budget commission. That is what this consortium of groups, from Common Cause, to NOW, to People for the American Way, writes, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full text of their letter.

Mr. BAUCUS. It is not just progressive groups that oppose the Conrad- Gregg amendment. On January 15, a broad consortium of conservative groups sent what they called ``An Open Letter to U.S. Senators Urging Opposition to the Conrad-Gregg Bipartisan Tax/Spending 'Reform' Commission.'' This conservative consortium said: On behalf of the millions of taxpayers, small businesses, families, senior citizens and shareholders represented by our respective organizations, we urge you in the strongest terms to oppose and vote against the ``Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2009,'' sponsored by Senators Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, be it in stand-alone form or as an amendment. These conservative groups explained their motivation. In their view, they said: As written, the Conrad-Gregg proposal would lead to a guaranteed tax increase. These conservative groups concluded as follows: We urge you to oppose and vote against the misguided plan when it comes before you. Among the signatories of this letter are the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, the American Shareholders Association, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and the National Taxpayers Union. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full text of the consortium letter.

Mr. BAUCUS. Also on the conservative side, on December 29, 2009, the Wall Street Journal editorial page--no friend of progressive causes-- published an editorial entitled ``The Deficit Commission Trap.'' The editors of the Wall Street Journal wrote: We only hope Republicans aren't foolish enough to fall down this trap door. I conclude by saying that people on both sides of the political spectrum have very grave reservations and urge opposition to the amendment to be offered by our good friends and colleagues, Senators Conrad and Gregg, and I hope we do not adopt that amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of mine be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the debt limit legislation: Aislinn Baker, Ian Clements, Brittany Durell, Ivie English, Zach Person, Greg Sullivan, and Ashley Zuelke.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 228 at the desk and just received from the House.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 1854 be discharged from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and then be referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. BAUCUS. I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. Thursday, January 21; that following the prayer and 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 equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 45, the debt limit bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there are three amendments pending to the joint resolution. We hope to reach time agreements on those amendments and, therefore, votes are expected tomorrow. Senators will be notified when these votes are scheduled.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. 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 the Presiding Officer of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort the President of the United States to the House Chamber for the joint session to be held at 9 p.m. on Wednesday, January 27, 2010.

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

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. What is the regular order?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it has been more than a month since the majority leader moved to proceed to the health care reform bill before us today. At long last, the Senate is now in the final throes of passing this historic legislation. From the beginning, this Senator has sought out what Abraham Lincoln called ``the better angels of our nature.'' That is the way this Senator has always sought to legislate. A year and a half ago, I convened a bipartisan retreat at the Library of Congress. Half a year ago, I convened three bipartisan roundtables with health care experts. Half a year ago, the Finance Committee conducted three bipartisan walk-throughs of the major concepts behind the bill before us today. We went the extra mile. I reached out to my good friend, the ranking Republican member of the Finance Committee. I reached out to the ranking Republican member of the HELP Committee. We sought to craft a bill that would appeal to the broad middle. We sought to craft a bill that could win the support of Republicans and Democrats alike. We met, a group of six of us, three Democrats and three Republicans. We met more than 30 times. We met for months, encouraged by the President to do so. Our group met with the President several times. The President encouraged us to keep pursuing our negotiations, hoping to reach bipartisan agreements. No, we did not reach a formal agreement. The leadership on the other side of the aisle went to great lengths to stop us from doing so. But even though we did not reach a formal agreement, we came very close to doing so. The principles that we discussed are very much the principles upon which the Finance Committee built its bill. The principles that we discussed are very much the principles reflected in the bill before us today. Our work began much earlier than I have indicated. We met all the preceding year, held about ten hearings in the Finance Committee working toward health care reform. We also finished a white paper in November 2008. I say with trepidation that basically that is the foundation from which almost all ideas in health care reform emanated. To be fair, the ideas in that paper had been floating around, principles from the Massachusetts health care reform, for example. Most policy experts and health care economists who had been working on reform published their ideas. We sought the best, compiled them, and put together that white paper published in November of last year. From the debate that the Senate has conducted this past month, you would not know it. During this debate, some on the other side of the aisle have mischaracterized the bill before us. Some on the other side of the aisle have set about a systematic campaign to demonize this bill. Through bare assertion alone, with the thinnest connection to fact, they have sought to vilify our work. If one listened to their assertions alone, one would not recognize the bill before us. And so, let me, quite simply, state the facts. Some on the other side of the aisle assert that this bill is a government takeover of health care. The fact is that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that this bill would reduce the government's fiscal role in health care. Just 3 days ago, CBO wrote, and I quote: CBO expects that the proposal would generate a reduction in the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade following the 10-year budget window. Some on the other side of the aisle assert that this bill would add to our Nation's burden of debt. The fact is that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that this bill would reduce the deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years and by between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion in the second 10 years. The fact is that this is the most serious deficit reduction effort in more than a decade. Some on the other side of the aisle assert that this bill would harm Medicare. The fact is that Medicare's independent actuary says that this bill would extend the life of Medicare by 9 years. The fact is that this is the most responsible effort to shore up Medicare in more than a decade. Some on the other side of the aisle assert that this bill does not do enough to ensure the uninsured. The fact is that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that this bill would extend access to health care to 31 million Americans who otherwise would have to go without. The fact is that CBO says, and I quote: The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 94 percent. Nothing that Senators on the other side of the aisle have proposed would come close. CBO estimated that the Republican substitute offered in the House of Representatives would have extended coverage to just 3 million people. The fact is that CBO says of that plan, and I quote: The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share. I would cite the facts about the Republican substitute in the Senate. But the fact is that there is no Republican substitute. Some on the other side of the aisle assert that they simply prefer a more modest reform of health care. The fact is that the Republicans controlled the Senate from 1995 to 2001 and from 2003 to 2006. The fact is that before they took control, in 1994, 36 million Americans, 15.8 percent of nonelderly Americans were without health insurance coverage. In the last year of their control, in 2006, nearly 47 million Americans, 17.8 percent of non- elderly Americans were without health insurance coverage. The legacy of Republican control was 10 million more Americans uninsured. Some on the other side of the aisle say that we are moving too fast. The fact is that it was 1912, when former President Theodore Roosevelt first made national health insurance part of the Progressive Party's campaign platform. The fact is that people of good will have been working at this for nearly a century. The fact is, health care reform for America is now within reach. The fact is, the most serious effort to control health care costs is now within reach. The fact is, life-saving health care coverage for 31 million Americans is now within reach. Let us, at long last, grasp that result. Let us, this time, not let this good thing slip through our hands. And let us, at long last, enact health care reform for all. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to each side.