Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest their side has more time remaining, so they should speak next.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, things are getting a little down to the wire here. How much time is remaining?

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will inquire again as to the time remaining.

Mr. BAUCUS. Does the other side have any time?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon is right. And I see the Senator from North Dakota shaking her head. With all due respect, I think she is not correct. This is either enforceable on foreign countries or it is not. It is impossible to force our laws on other countries unless other countries consent. Just to say so in a statute here does not make it true, in a bill does not make it true. There has to be a treaty, a tax treaty. There has to be some way for the foreign jurisdiction to agree; otherwise, we cannot possibly enforce this in other jurisdictions or on the other side, if we do, then those other countries can come back and do the same thing to the United States. Do we want Chinese direct sellers to come back to the United States or, vice versa, for the Chinese to collect in the United States? The Senator from New Hampshire had it exactly right: It should be the purchaser who pays the tax, and that is where it should be enforced, not the tax collector, the small businessman in another State. I might sum up by saying, we will take this up in the Finance Committee and work out all these different kinks and wrinkles on it, but that is where it should be done.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the amendment requires something called dynamic scoring. The Joint Committee on Tax, which provides us with information on how to score revenue measures, uses conventional scoring, and has been doing this for years and years. And they do utilize the secondary effects when they do conventional scoring. Dynamic scoring goes many steps farther. It tries to dissipate the macroeconomic effect down the road, which is basically what Ben Bernanke does. It is very difficult and arbitrary and very hard to do. It would cause great swings. It may be close to the mark, it may be off the mark. In addition, this amendment required dynamic scoring only with respect to revenue measures, but not required with respect to spending measures. When CBO does spending, they use conventional scoring. I might also say that in the footnote, the Joint Committee on Tax already gives its best guess of what the dynamic scoring would be, although that is not the numbers they use when they try to estimate the revenue effect. I think it would be a big mistake to do that at this time.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I think this amendment is not yet ready. It is premature. This is a very complicated question, and I think there has been a lot of easy talk and a little bit of herd instinct here that, gee, because most States are not sales tax States, therefore this amendment should be adopted. The fact that is this is an extremely complicated question. For example, who is going to enforce this statute? Is the State of California, for example, or the State of Massachusetts going to enforce the noncollection of sales tax in another State? That is revolutionary. I cannot think of an instance where this Congress has legislated that a State can go into another State and enforce the taxation laws in that second State or when a State has empowered the State court in one State to go to another State and enforce the State taxation in that other State. It has not happened. It is not only complicated, but it is revolutionary. We have not done this before--nothing similar. I understand the arguments of those who want to pass this. They make some good points. I have said to Senator Durbin, Senator Enzi, and others that we in the Finance Committee will very seriously take this up as soon as we can and will probably in the context of tax reform. Let me repeat. It raises lots of questions that have not been addressed with respect to States rights; that is, the degree to which authorities in one State or courts in one State are able to go to another State and enforce State taxation issues. Certainly, we have the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution where if someone in California, for example, gets a court order or wants to enforce a collection of tax in California, that could not be overturned in another State. That is not this question. This question is whether courts in other States and citizens in other States can go to another State and force the court in that other State to enforce that other State's taxation law. We are not talking about the taxation law in California. We are talking about the other State taxation laws. We have never done that, and I don't think it is wise to start going down that road now. Second, different States have different State taxation laws for different reasons. Some States have income taxes. Some don't. Some have sales taxes. Some don't. The State of Montana has decided no sales tax, but we will have a significant income tax. Other States say no income tax but a significant sales tax. That is their prerogative. That is how they want to run their State. What does this do? This basically will have the virtual effect over a period of time of saying that all States have to have a sales tax-- forget your income tax--and beyond that, it has to be the same rate. That is what is going to happen here over time if this is enacted into law. You are telling States they have to have a sales tax even if they don't want to. I don't think we want to do that, to say nothing of all the potential complications revolving around different jurisdictions. I know the authors of this bill say: Computers can take care of it all. That is part of the problem. The computers get shut down, they get hacked. It is not the panacea a lot of people talk about. This is extremely complicated. Sure, we have to have a full, complete hearing on this, and we should and we will. The best thing to do right now is to have this amendment withdrawn because otherwise there are going to be a lot of amendments offered today, tomorrow, and tonight that are going to show all the defects of this, and they are all going to pass, and that is going to seriously undermine and be a poison pill for this bill that is pending right now. So the best solution is to withdraw this amendment now. Let's not try to solve this here in the Senate budget resolution but, rather, it should be in the right forum in the right location, and that is the Finance Committee, with big hearings, and we will work all this out because there are very legitimate points to be made on both sides. What bothers me is there is a lot of easy talk about how good this is, how fair it is, and nobody has thought through all the unintended consequences and all the problems that could arise, and I just started to raise a few of them. My friend from Oregon had a good thought. What about Canada? What about direct sellers in Canada just across the border? They sell to the United States. Do we have jurisdiction over Canada? I don't think so. And I can see a burgeoning direct sales business and revenue to Canada, as my friend from Oregon thought of. There are a lot of others that we haven't thought about because it has not become ripe. It has not become ripe because we haven't had a direct hearing in a direct forum. So I just say this is not a good idea. I understand the reasons why some advocate it, but I might say this: If we assume Federal dollars-- because someone has to come up with asking Uncle Sam for Federal dollars to enforce this question in another State. Do we want that? I ask, who is the enforcer here? Is it another State? Is it Uncle Sam? I don't know. That has not been thought through. Therefore, I strongly urge that it not be adopted. Otherwise, we are going to have a ton of amendments that are not going to be appreciated by the supporters of this bill. If they pass, it will dramatically weaken any momentum they think they are going to have. So discretion is the better part of valor. Let's withdraw this, and let's consider this calmly in the right forum. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. You will get one.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I can't guarantee a time. Nobody around here can. But I think it is appropriate that this is an issue that should come up in the context of tax reform, which the committee is pressing very vigorously. We had a meeting today in the Finance Committee on the first of many steps. Regrettably, Senator Enzi was unable to make it. It was on tax reform. And that is the appropriate forum for this to be brought.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. That is basically correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask to speak as if in morning business.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, Johnny Wooden, the 10-time national championship winning coach of UCLA, once said: ``The main ingredient of stardom is the rest of the team.'' It takes a little star power and teamwork to win 10 championships, but it takes something extra special to win the Big Sky Coach of the Year Award 20 times. That is Lady Griz Coach Robin Selvig. Coach Selvig hails from Outlook, MT. He has true grit. He grew up north of the Hi-Line. I know the occupant of the chair knows where the Hi-Line is. That is up in northern Montana. There is a Hi-Line across Montana that even stretches over Highway 2 over into North Dakota. Under Coach Selvig's leadership, the Lady Griz have made it to the Big Dance 20 times in the NCAA's 32-year history. Selvig has 798 wins in 35 seasons. I also rise to honor Montana Grizzly men's basketball coach Ben Tinkle. Coach Tinkle was also honored this week as the Big Sky's Coach of the Year for the men's basketball program. Coach Tinkle is leading the team to their second trip in a row to the NCAA tournament, after winning a dramatic Big Sky Conference championship against Weber State. Jordan Gregory's free throws in the final seconds of the game were icing on the cake that pulled the Griz ahead to win the game. The Griz basketball teams have had many spectacular seasons. And the Congress, I might add, could learn a lesson or two from the Big Sky Conference basketball champions. Both programs join a long tradition of excellence and a long tradition of teamwork that makes Montana proud. That is why they win games. These teams have shown a dedication to their school, their fans, their studies, and their community that is a reflection of our Montana values. As both the Lady Griz and the Grizzly Men's basketball teams head into the NCAA tournament this week, I take this opportunity to publicly congratulate each player on the roster, the coaching staff, and the entire University of Montana community for this terrific season. I join Montanans in celebrating their teamwork and wishing them the best. Go Griz. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of the players and coaches be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes and that following my remarks Senator Moran be granted up to 10 minutes and then Senator Boxer be recognized.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this month we mark the 10th anniversary of the United States-led invasion of Iraq. With more veterans per capita than nearly any other State, Montanans proudly answer when duty calls. The Book of John, chapter 15, verse 13 says: ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' On this anniversary, we remember the Montanans and all Americans who laid down their lives in the name of freedom. On my family ranch near Wolf Creek, MT, there is a willow tree that sways in the wind and stretches in the Sun. On July 29, 2006, my nephew, Marine Cpl Phillip Baucus, was killed during combat operations in Iraq's Al Anbar Province. He was just 28 years old. He was laid to rest on the same mountain where my father lies, the same ranch where he had married his lovely Katharine less than 1 year earlier. Phillip was a bright and dedicated young man. He was like a son to me. My brother John and I planted that willow tree on the ranch in memory of Phillip. We also planted a pine tree nearby. I am not the only Montanan who has grieved. Forty Montanans have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. We grieve for them all. We miss them all. We must honor their courage by living up to the ideals they died to defend. We must also honor their sacrifice by supporting the troops who come home forever changed. Thousands come home with traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other injuries. Make no mistake, we have taken important steps to see that veterans receive the care they need when they come home. We have worked for a strong post-9/11 GI bill to ensure thousands of veterans can go to college. We also fought to make sure the VA is fairly and adequately supporting our student veterans. Yet it remains a disgrace that unemployment rates among veterans exceed that of nonveterans. In Montana, unemployment among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans stands at 17.5 percent. That is the fourth highest rate in the country. Since the Iraq war began, I have hired veterans to help draft policies that honor the sacrifices of our military. My staff has worked with me to draft the original tax credit for businesses that hire veterans. I am very honored to see that has been adopted by this Congress and by the President. We spearheaded efforts to improve mental health screenings for all branches of the military based on Montana's strong model for catching the warning signs of PTSD. We started that in Montana. It is now incorporated as national defense policy. In the last 10 years, our Nation has also been fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. As we reflect on the costs of the war in Iraq, we know that now is the time for Afghans to take responsibility for their own country. In 2013, $97 billion will go to the war in Afghanistan alone. Do you know that the money that is being spent in both Iraq and Afghanistan is enough to double the number of public elementary schools in the United States and rebuild the American Interstate Highway System five times over? Dollars spent daily in Afghanistan need to be spent on nation building here at home. While I am proud that we are closer than ever to bringing all of our troops home, it is not enough to just bring them back. We need to and can be doing a better job making sure our troops are ready to compete and win on the homefront. That means making sure that the day they are discharged from the service, they can transfer skills earned from the military into the civilian workforce. My first order of business this year was to declare war on veterans unemployment. Troops who are trained to do a job in the military should get civilian credentials at the same time. They should not have to get recredentialed and retrained when they get home. If they got credentialed in the military, that should be sufficient for driving trucks, et cetera. The effort is already underway for EMTs and truckdrivers, but my VETs Act goes even further to cover military police, firefighters, and air traffic controllers. In 2011, 1,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans were unemployed in Montana, 240,000 unemployed nationwide. With 34,000 troops scheduled to come home from Afghanistan next year, the time to get serious about tackling veterans unemployment is now. We will never forget the Montanans we have lost in combat in the Mideast over the last 10 years. They had big dreams. They looked forward to long, happy lives. They were volunteers. They were sons and daughters. They had children. They had dear friends. They grew up in small towns, such as Fairfield, Sand Springs, Philipsburg, and Wolf Creek. We hear their voices at Little League games, in the babbling creeks of Montana, in the rustling of willow trees we planted to remember them. We remember them in our hearts and in our deeds. President Lincoln concluded his second inaugural address with a call for the Nation to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' Lincoln's charge remains our sacred duty today. The 40 Montanans we remember today left behind 28 children who will be growing up without them. I also applaud a group of patriotic Montanans who are working to make sure those children can get a college education in Montana. Grateful Nation Montana is a proud example of answering the call to serve, serving those who proudly served us. Their mission is to provide college scholarships at Montana schools for the sons and daughters of our fallen heroes. We must remember our vets. To all of our veterans and families of veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice, we want them to know they are not alone. Let's recommit ourselves to making sure our veterans come home safely to good-paying jobs and a nation that honors their sacrifices. National Ag Week I would like to speak on another important issue in my home State as we mark National Ag Week. President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, ``Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field.'' Truer words were never spoken to describe the divide of how agriculture is viewed between Washington, DC, and Montana. Agriculture is a central part of who we are as Montanans. Fifty percent of Montana's economy is tied to ranching and farming, supporting one in five jobs in Montana. I had the privilege to grow up on a ranch outside of Helena, MT, near Wolf Creek, MT. It taught me firsthand the values of hard work, faith, family, and doing what is right. Those are the values I take with me to work every day. Paul Harvey, who got his start in broadcasting in Montana, said it best in his poem ``So God Made a Farmer": God looked down on the Earth he created and said, I need a caretaker for this world I have made, and so God made a farmer. So as part of trying to bridge that divide between Washington, DC, and Montana, I honor the strong legacy of farming and ranching families in Montana by celebrating National Ag Day. For those Montana families involved in agriculture, it is so much more than a livelihood, it is a way of life. I am honored to represent so many ranchers, so many farmers from Montana who have dedicated their lives to the land and provide a service from which everyone in the world benefits. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2013. As we continue to find ways to tackle the important issues of this nation's long-term future, we begin this new congress with an opportunity to take responsibility. This includes the ways we look to safeguard our land. Today, I am introducing the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act as part of our collective mission to ensure a prosperous nation for future generations. We all know our land has a deeper worth than the goods we have cultivated or extracted from beneath the earth. It is our heritage. And when a piece of our heritage is lost, we do not simply lose its future value in dollars. We also lose the wildlife habitat and the open areas that may be enjoyed by people from around the world, on top of the very personal value it has held for generations of landowners. It is our job in government, as stewards of the land, to safeguard this precious gift for our grandchildren and to provide support to the farmers, ranchers and other hard-working landowners who rely on it to make a living. For this reason we have decided to provide targeted income tax relief to small farmers and ranchers who donate their land under a qualified conservation easement. The provision increases the deduction amount eligible farmers and ranchers may receive for charitable contributions of qualified conservation easements by raising the adjusted gross income limitation from 50 percent to 100 percent and extending the carryover period from 5 years to 15 years. For all other landowners, the AGI limitation was raised from 30 percent to 50 percent. This provision was included in the fiscal cliff package and will expire at the end of this year. The bill before you, the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2013, will make this valuable incentive permanent. Conversation easements have been established as an effective land preservation method across the country. In Montana, we currently have over 2.1 million acres covered by conservation easements. To some, that may seem like a large amount, but this is Montana, and those easements are only 2.2 percent of the total state land area. But we leverage far more value out of these easements because they are often located within or next to large tracts of public lands. In Montana, we fully recognize the importance of using these easements to protect our lands. Now is the time to help my country and my State to do all they can. This legislative body, the individual States, and the Nation together should stand up for future generations and declare that the time for land preservation is now. I believe that we should do all we can to help landowners afford to choose conservation and preservation, and this bill is a step in the right direction. Let us get rid of the uncertainty that comes with temporary provisions and build on the success of what we have already begun to do. Let us pass the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2013. As we continue to find ways to tackle the important issues of this nation's long-term future, we begin this new congress with an opportunity to take responsibility. This includes the ways we look to safeguard our land. Today, I am introducing the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act as part of our collective mission to ensure a prosperous nation for future generations. We all know our land has a deeper worth than the goods we have cultivated or extracted from beneath the earth. It is our heritage. And when a piece of our heritage is lost, we do not simply lose its future value in dollars. We also lose the wildlife habitat and the open areas that may be enjoyed by people from around the world, on top of the very personal value it has held for generations of landowners. It is our job in government, as stewards of the land, to safeguard this precious gift for our grandchildren and to provide support to the farmers, ranchers and other hard-working landowners who rely on it to make a living. For this reason we have decided to provide targeted income tax relief to small farmers and ranchers who donate their land under a qualified conservation easement. The provision increases the deduction amount eligible farmers and ranchers may receive for charitable contributions of qualified conservation easements by raising the adjusted gross income limitation from 50 percent to 100 percent and extending the carryover period from 5 years to 15 years. For all other landowners, the AGI limitation was raised from 30 percent to 50 percent. This provision was included in the fiscal cliff package and will expire at the end of this year. The bill before you, the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2013, will make this valuable incentive permanent. Conversation easements have been established as an effective land preservation method across the country. In Montana, we currently have over 2.1 million acres covered by conservation easements. To some, that may seem like a large amount, but this is Montana, and those easements are only 2.2 percent of the total state land area. But we leverage far more value out of these easements because they are often located within or next to large tracts of public lands. In Montana, we fully recognize the importance of using these easements to protect our lands. Now is the time to help my country and my State to do all they can. This legislative body, the individual States, and the Nation together should stand up for future generations and declare that the time for land preservation is now. I believe that we should do all we can to help landowners afford to choose conservation and preservation, and this bill is a step in the right direction. Let us get rid of the uncertainty that comes with temporary provisions and build on the success of what we have already begun to do. Let us pass the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I don't fully understand. I am happy to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this Senator was probably not paying enough attention. This is the Senator's motion to recommit?

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I respect my Ranking Member's attempt to alter the leader's bill to strike the revenue increases in this legislation. However, I think time is at a premium and we need to consider the Reid legislation today. Recommitting the bill to the Finance Committee will delay a solution to the sequestration cuts for weeks, if not months, and I believe most Members believe we should address the issue here and now. There is no time to waste. We will have a full opportunity to discuss additional deficit reduction ideas in the coming weeks when we consider the budget resolution, the continuing resolution and the extension of the debt limit. I agree we need to cut our debt and get our fiscal house in order. We know there are places to trim the fat in Federal programs. To give families and businesses certainty, we must agree on a balanced, comprehensive plan to cut the debt that includes both revenue and spending cuts. The math will not work any other way. A long-term balanced plan will bridge the budget battles and make real progress solving our deficit problem. A balanced plan will also encourage businesses to invest, enable investors to return to the markets with confidence, and, most importantly, put Americans back to work in a growing economy. And I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, taking on these fiscal challenges and crafting policies that create more jobs and spark economic growth. The only way we will be able to get past these budget battles is by working together--Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate. We need to work together. However, at this time I object to the motion to recommit.

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Chair indicate the time remaining?

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask which side has the 22 minutes?