Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we in Congress this year are embarked on major efforts to enact health care reform. It is very much in the President's budget. President Obama very much wants to enact health care reform this year. There are provisions in the budget resolution to encourage us as a body, a Congress, to enact health care reform. The basic reason is because it is so needed. It is incredibly important that our Nation enact health care reform this year. I am not going to get into all the details and the various provisions that we must enact in order to get meaningful health care reform. By meaningful health care reform, I mean controlling costs. I remind my colleague, we in America spend about $2.5, $2.6 trillion on health care. That is this year. If we do not do anything, those costs are going to almost double in 6 to 8 years. We can't continue to spend what we do on health care. We spend almost twice as much as the next most expensive country. It is a huge cost of business. It is a very big cost to American business. American companies are becoming less competitive. Why? Because health care costs are too high; business costs are too high. In addition, look at our Medicare budget. It is going out of sight. If we do nothing, if we don't curb our underlying Medicare budget costs, our budget, along with Medicaid, will probably double in another 8 or 9 or 10 years. That is unsustainable, to say nothing about individual costs to individual Americans, the personal costs, the family costs, the premium costs. We don't have a system in this country. We have a hodgepodge of lots of different functions--doctors, nurses, insurance companies, medical equipment suppliers, PMDs-- everything is part of the system, and they are all trying to help supply health care, but because it is so disjointed we have a nonsystem where costs are just rising exponentially. We also have a nonsystem where 46 million Americans don't have health insurance, and about 25 million additional Americans are underinsured. It is ridiculous. This is the only industrialized country without health insurance. What we need is a solution which is uniquely an American solution. We are not Canada, we are not Great Britain, we are not France, we are not Sweden, we are the United States of America. By ``uniquely American,'' I mean it should be a combination of public and private. That $2.6 trillion we spend today is divided half in private and half in public. We must find a way to curb costs, to get coverage to Americans retaining that uniquely American approach of private and public coverage. We are working hard to try to find that solution. Part of the solution is reducing unnecessary costs and waste in our system. There is immense waste in the American health care system--immense waste. Basically, it is because of practice patterns, it is because of the way we reimburse on volume and quantity, not quality. We have to move much more toward reimbursement; that is, paying doctors and hospitals on the basis of quality, not volume, and concepts such as bundling and medical home and health IT, which is in the budget, so we have information technology assistance to help, in several years, get to the point where we reduce health care cost. But another is, frankly, comparative effectiveness. We need to know the comparative effectiveness of drugs, procedures, medical equipment, et cetera, so we get the best, highest quality, and we, therefore, will probably know which ones will tend to cost more than others. Doctors can make choices, patients can make choices, and insurance companies can make choices as to which procedure, which drug makes more sense. Basically, it is up to the doctor to decide which way makes the most sense. Now, the effect of the Kyl amendment, as I understand, is, frankly, to say that you have to pay for a very costly procedure that somebody deems to be not only ineffective, it may be harmful, and you have to pay for it. That does not make sense. Rather, I think the Senator from Arizona agrees with me, we are trying to figure out a way to use comparative effectiveness to help doctors have more information, and hospitals more information, as to which works better, has higher quality, and works better when compared to something else. We are going to have to get into issues such as evidence-based medicine to help determine quality. Lots of concepts here that make a lot of sense. But I wished to say that whereas the intention--I somewhat understand the intention of the amendment, somewhat. I do not entirely understand the intention of the amendment. But the effect of the amendment is to say that a procedure--let me get this straight. The language does not curb growth in health care spending by using data obtained by comparative effectiveness. It says there can be a procedure determined to be totally ineffective or may be harmful, but it has to be used. The doctor has to use it. That does not make sense. I think it is a doctor's choice as to whether, by looking at the various procedures, what makes more sense compared to something else, using the data we provide by this process. But that is still a doctor's choice. That doctor, he or she, that doctor should decide which of these makes the most sense. Therefore, I think it makes much more sense, frankly, that this not be approved. It is not necessary. It kind of gets in the way. Senator Hatch and I and Senators Grassley and Enzi are introducing a comparative effectiveness amendment. It gets to what I think the Senator from Arizona wants us to move toward; that is, comparative effectiveness, where we look at comparative quality of procedures, which is what we are trying to do--not cost but quality. There was a big dustup in the stimulus debate about comparative effectiveness because somebody thought we were putting a cost-benefit analysis in it. We are not. We took that out. I must say to my friends, I went to the mat, frankly, to make sure cost was taken out. We took it out. It is just comparing quality. The bill I hope to introduce--working to get support from Senators Grassley, Hatch, and Enzi--would take cost out. It is just looking at quality. That is what we want to do. It is based on quality. I think the Senator from Arizona will be very happy with that bill we are going to be introducing because it gets at what I think the Senator wants: Let's compare quality, but let's not put the cost component into it because that would not be appropriate at this time.

Mr. BAUCUS. No.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this is a rather remarkable amendment. It basically says we cannot pay any attention to the fruits of clinical research in making decisions about what is covered under health care reform. I find that pretty amazing. For example, let's say that clinical research shows a certain procedure is not only not good but it is harmful, such as Vioxx, which caused problems for seniors. This amendment says we cannot use that evidence. We cannot use that information. We can't do that because it might suggest we can't use a certain procedure--Vioxx. This is an ostrich amendment. This is a head-in-the-sand amendment. We want to have the benefits of clinical research so that doctors can make up their own minds what is the best procedure. We want the fruits and the benefit of clinical research to address the quality of health care. I urge Members to vote for health care and vote against this amendment. I might say, too, Madam President, that I misspoke earlier when I said who is a cosponsor of the bill. We are urging Senators Enzi and Hatch to cosponsor the bill. They haven't quite done that yet, but I think it is going to happen.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Tessa Shumway of Terry, MT--this year's winner of the National Disaster Response Preparedness Award from the American Red Cross. Tessa is from Terry, a small town in eastern Montana. In Montana, we are proud of our open spaces, of our outdoor heritage and our rural landscape. We didn't get the title ``Big Sky Country'' by filling our land with skyscrapers or high rises or byways. We are hard working, quiet people with the grit to build our lives on some of the most beautiful and rugged land on Earth. We are Montanans. Of course, living in Montana's rural communities can create some challenges. For folks in places like Ismay or Brockaway, when disaster strikes, the nearest help may be miles away. And that is where Tessa Shumway comes in. Tessa is the face of the Red Cross across 10 counties in eastern Montana. Her territory is larger than the entire State of Indiana. She is on call 24 hours a day, every day of the week. She is the local disaster chair, disaster instructor, preparedness trainer, volunteer recruiter and statewide disaster committee cochair. In addition to all this, Tessa holds a regular day job as a bartender at the American Legion in Terry. Tessa received the Disaster Response Preparedness Award not only for her years spent helping the folks of eastern Montana, but also for the new volunteers and Red Cross workers she has trained. It is impossible to know how many lives she has touched, how many people she has helped, simply by passing her knowledge on to others. I would like to congratulate Tessa, her husband Zane and two children, Josh and Katrina--as well as the folks of Terry, who have a true hero in their community. March of 2009 was a difficult month for Montanans. Several tragedies shook our State, from a deadly explosion in Bozeman to the tragic plane crash in Butte. Montana's Red Cross stepped up to help folks recover and rebuild. Tessa herself was on hand to help victims of the fire in Miles City and find shelter for folks displaced by dangerous winter storms. I believe service is one of the most honorable things a person can do. Whether it is service to one's community, State or country--service is the most noble of all human endeavors. That is why I would like to recognize Tessa Shumway as a Montana hero--a woman who has given so much of herself to her neighbors and to the people of our State. We are lucky to have her under the Big Sky and I am proud to call her a fellow Montanan.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I most certainly agree with the Senator's description and I thank him for his collaboration in developing this robust new tax credit.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my colleague from New Mexico, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for his dedication to this issue. I am pleased to have worked with Senator Bingaman, the chairman of the Finance Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure, on this new incentive. And I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Bingaman that we cannot allow the United States to miss the opportunity to add thousands of green manufacturing jobs. This new tax credit for investment in advanced energy facilities will level the playing field so that the U.S. can compete for these jobs, and I was pleased to include it in my chairman's mark when the Finance Committee considered this legislation. Under section 1302 of ARRA, the Treasury Secretary is authorized to award total credits of up to $2.3 billion for qualifying projects. Within 180 days of enactment, the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, is required to establish a program to consider and award certifications for projects that qualify for the credit. The bill enumerates selection criteria that the Treasury Secretary shall take into consideration. The Finance Committee developed these criteria with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and through the Chair, I would like to ask Senator Bingaman to explain the criteria and clarify how Congress intends the administration to implement this credit.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota would state the sense of the Senate that the tax law should not be changed in any way that would discourage taxpayers from making charitable contributions and gifts. This country has a proud tradition of charitable giving. We are proud of that tradition. We are proud that we give to those in need, and we should encourage people to keep on giving. One of the best ways to do that is through the itemized deduction for charitable giving. We very much support the itemized deduction for charitable giving. But the Senator's amendment is overbroad. It would put the Senate on record as favoring the preservation of incentives for charitable giving over all other priorities. Let me talk about a few other priorities the Senate might want to consider. What about cracking down on tax cheats? What about balancing the budget? What about repealing the so-called death tax? The Senator's amendment could be read as conflicting with each of those other priorities. Let me explain. Let's say a tax cheat sets up a charity that is really a scam. Should the IRS be able to crack down on that scam? Of course it should. But the Senator's amendment says we should preserve the full income tax deduction. Let's say we want to repeal the estate tax--some call it the death tax. There is pretty wide agreement that it is a disagreeable tax. But studies have also shown that repeal of that death tax would decrease charitable giving. Should we not scale back the estate tax anyway? Of course we should. But the Senator's amendment would put the Senate on record that we always want to encourage charitable giving rather than discourage it, which would put a big limitation on reducing the death tax. What if we reach a bipartisan budget agreement to limit the deficit and help balance the budget? Might we want to consider limiting the ability of upper income taxpayers to take their full deductions? This is not so farfetched an idea. Under current law, itemized deductions are already limited for high-income givers--taxpayers with more than $166,800 in income. Congress enacted that change as part of a bipartisan budget agreement, negotiated by OMB Director Dick Darman, and signed into law by the first President Bush. Yet these Americans still give. Americans who itemize deductions, as well as those who don't itemize deductions, continue to give. According to the CRS, only 30 percent of taxpayers claim a deduction for charitable giving. Yet we know many more give to charity. The group Independent Sector found that 70 percent of households give. Thankfully, many taxpayers make charitable contributions, even though they are not getting any tax benefit at all. Indeed, one might say the greatest charity is when someone gives from the heart rather than just when it is tax deductible. So we do not need the extreme statement in the Senator's sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I have offered a side-by-side amendment that emphasizes Congress's continued support of tax incentives for giving. Let's show our support for charitable giving without making the categorical statement in the Thune amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Thune amendment and support the Baucus amendment. Amendment No. 721 to Amendment No. 687

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be temporarily laid aside so that I may call up amendment No. 721.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on two amendments on the tax treatment of charitable giving. The first is my amendment. My amendment would put the Senate on record supporting charities. It says Congress should look for ways to encourage charitable giving. I hope my colleagues can support it. The second amendment is the Thune amendment. The Thune amendment favors preservation of full taxing incentives for charitable giving, over all other priorities. That is overbroad. That is extreme. I will have more to say about that in a few minutes. But the first vote is now on my amendment to state that the Senate's strong support for charitable giving. I encourage my colleagues to support that amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. I encourage all time to be yielded back.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Thune amendment says: Preserve full tax incentives for charitable giving, over all other priorities. This is a shot at President Obama's proposal to limit deductions for those making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year. But the Senator's amendment is broader than that. It is overbroad. Should the tax law be able to crack down on charities that are actually scams? Of course, it should. But the Thune amendment says: Preserve the full income tax deduction, no matter what. Should we scale back the estate tax, even if it would decrease charitable giving? Of course, we should. But the Thune amendment says: Don't discourage charitable giving. This amendment is overbroad. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there is a storm brewing. This storm is not an act of God. It is man-made. It is coming to a head next year. The 2001 tax cut law gave much-needed tax relief to families with children. It gave much-needed tax relief to families with college students. It gave much-needed relief to family-owned businesses. I worked on those tax cuts. I believed in them. But the provisions in that bill expire on December 31, 2010. Since the day that we passed that bill, we have passed others. These other bills expanded and enhanced some of the 2001 provisions that help America's families. Next year, all that we have done disappears. American families are left in a state of uncertainty. This uncertainty undermines confidence in the Government and the future. That is why, today, I am introducing the Taxpayer Certainty and Relief Act of 2009. This bill would make permanent several expiring provisions that help families. This bill would make permanent the tax cuts for the 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, and 25 percent tax brackets. Without this change, taxpayers would experience up to a $5,000 tax increase. This bill would make permanent the lower capital gains rates for taxpayers in these brackets. This bill would makes permanent the marriage penalty relief enacted in 2001. This would guaranty that married couples would not be penalized when they take their wedding vows. This bill would also make permanent the $1,000 child tax credit. It would also make permanent the refundable child tax credit, with a threshold of $3,000, that was recently passed as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This is important because prior to the 2001 bill, this credit was $500 and not refundable. This bill would make permanent the expansion of the earned income tax credit. As a result, married couples would get more relief and families with three or more children would get a larger credit. The bill would help working men and women by making permanent the changes to the dependent and child care credit. This credit helps cover the increased expenses of providing child care during a time when everyone is struggling to stay employed and weather this economic downturn. This bill would also make permanent the increased credit for adoption. Giving a child a home and love is expensive. Families that adopt children have a lot of expenses. This bill would continue to give a $10,000 credit for adoption expenses. These provisions recognize the increased cost of raising children. Congress values families and wants every family to succeed. Another problem that Congress has to tackle every year is the Alternative Minimum Tax, or the AMT. This tax creeps up on millions of taxpayers every year. Every year, Congress holds this monster at bay, making sure no new taxpayers pay this horrible tax. As a result, the number of taxpayers paying the AMT remains at just over 4 million. Without Congress's action, 26 million people would have to pay this tax. This bill would permanently fix the AMT. It sets the exemption at 2009 levels and indexes it for future years. It also allows the AMT against the nonrefundable credits. Finally, this bill would offer certainty on the estate tax. This is something that I have tried to get done over and over again. The Finance Committee held several hearings discussing this tax. This bill makes permanent current law. This bill would set the exemption at $3.5 million, or $7 million for married couples. It would also set the tax rate at 45 percent. We have also made some other needed fixes. This bill would unify the gift and estate taxes. This bill would also allow a decedent spouse to transfer any unused exemption to the surviving spouse. This is known as portability. I believe that this bill is just the beginning. I realize there are other tax cuts that need to be made permanent. For example, I hope to address education issues later this year. But today, let us begin to give working families some shelter from the coming storm. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there is a storm brewing. This storm is not an act of God. It is man-made. It is coming to a head next year. The 2001 tax cut law gave much-needed tax relief to families with children. It gave much-needed tax relief to families with college students. It gave much-needed relief to family-owned businesses. I worked on those tax cuts. I believed in them. But the provisions in that bill expire on December 31, 2010. Since the day that we passed that bill, we have passed others. These other bills expanded and enhanced some of the 2001 provisions that help America's families. Next year, all that we have done disappears. American families are left in a state of uncertainty. This uncertainty undermines confidence in the Government and the future. That is why, today, I am introducing the Taxpayer Certainty and Relief Act of 2009. This bill would make permanent several expiring provisions that help families. This bill would make permanent the tax cuts for the 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, and 25 percent tax brackets. Without this change, taxpayers would experience up to a $5,000 tax increase. This bill would make permanent the lower capital gains rates for taxpayers in these brackets. This bill would makes permanent the marriage penalty relief enacted in 2001. This would guaranty that married couples would not be penalized when they take their wedding vows. This bill would also make permanent the $1,000 child tax credit. It would also make permanent the refundable child tax credit, with a threshold of $3,000, that was recently passed as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This is important because prior to the 2001 bill, this credit was $500 and not refundable. This bill would make permanent the expansion of the earned income tax credit. As a result, married couples would get more relief and families with three or more children would get a larger credit. The bill would help working men and women by making permanent the changes to the dependent and child care credit. This credit helps cover the increased expenses of providing child care during a time when everyone is struggling to stay employed and weather this economic downturn. This bill would also make permanent the increased credit for adoption. Giving a child a home and love is expensive. Families that adopt children have a lot of expenses. This bill would continue to give a $10,000 credit for adoption expenses. These provisions recognize the increased cost of raising children. Congress values families and wants every family to succeed. Another problem that Congress has to tackle every year is the Alternative Minimum Tax, or the AMT. This tax creeps up on millions of taxpayers every year. Every year, Congress holds this monster at bay, making sure no new taxpayers pay this horrible tax. As a result, the number of taxpayers paying the AMT remains at just over 4 million. Without Congress's action, 26 million people would have to pay this tax. This bill would permanently fix the AMT. It sets the exemption at 2009 levels and indexes it for future years. It also allows the AMT against the nonrefundable credits. Finally, this bill would offer certainty on the estate tax. This is something that I have tried to get done over and over again. The Finance Committee held several hearings discussing this tax. This bill makes permanent current law. This bill would set the exemption at $3.5 million, or $7 million for married couples. It would also set the tax rate at 45 percent. We have also made some other needed fixes. This bill would unify the gift and estate taxes. This bill would also allow a decedent spouse to transfer any unused exemption to the surviving spouse. This is known as portability. I believe that this bill is just the beginning. I realize there are other tax cuts that need to be made permanent. For example, I hope to address education issues later this year. But today, let us begin to give working families some shelter from the coming storm. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in a few moments, I will ask that an amendment be pending. First, I will speak on the amendment. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that will strengthen small charities around our country, especially in places where resources are scarce. My amendment will create a ``Nonprofit Capacity Building Program.'' I am pleased to have worked with my colleague Senator Grassley to develop this program. I have worked with Senator Grassley for several years on oversight of tax-exempt organizations and efforts to strengthen the nonprofit sector. Our amendment will connect Government funds with private-sector funds to provide education and training to small and midsize charities. Small charities around our country serve people in need of food or clothing, run afterschool programs, provide housing counseling, and other services that are vital to our communities. But in many cases, these small charities lack access to education opportunities where they might learn how to manage the charity's finances, fundraise effectively, accurately file tax forms, adopt new computer programs or plan a long-term budget. In nonprofit circles, folks would say these small nonprofits lack ``capacity,'' and training in these areas is called ``capacity- building.'' Our amendment will add $5 million per year over 5 years to the budget of the Corporation for National and Community Service to make matching grants to larger organizations so they will, in turn, provide training to small and midsize charities throughout their State or region. These kinds of training opportunities are especially rare for charities located in rural areas. Folks running a charity in a rural area may never have the chance to attend a grant-writing training or a class on nonprofit budget management. That is why our amendment states that nonprofit training opportunities should be targeted at charities in areas with these resource challenges. The amendment also requires the grants to be dollar-for-dollar matching grants. The match must come from non-Federal sources, such as private foundations or corporate giving programs. It is important that both the Federal Government and the private sector pitch in to provide this support. Government and private giving must coordinate better in support of people and communities. The underlying bill, the Serve America Act, supports the development of public-private solutions to problems facing our country. Some of my colleagues believe that the private sector must solve every problem facing our communities. Many others believe that Government is essential to solve the same problems. I believe that we need a combination of the best ideas from both. That is the spirit behind this amendment. I hear from folks in my home State of Montana on a weekly basis in support of this idea. The National Council of Nonprofits, Independent Sector, and the Alliance for Children and Families have voiced their strong support for this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Baucus-Grassley nonprofit capacity building amendment. Amendment No. 692 to Amendment No. 687 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside so I may call up my amendment No. 692.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I hope Senators will support this at the appropriate time. Pending that moment, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. I deeply thank the Senator from Maryland, who is a strong advocate for Serve America, a wonderful program. I think this will make it a little better. It is bipartisan, as she said. This helps more people. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, our next big objective is health care reform. We have a unique opportunity to move forward on health reform this year. Now we must act. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer to fix our Nation's health care system. We must work together to reduce health care costs, improve quality, and make coverage affordable for all Americans. In the Finance Committee, we have held 13 hearings to prepare for health reform. Last week, we held a hearing on our Nation's health care workforce. The hearing examined ways to address our current workforce needs. The hearing considered ways to prepare our medical providers for health care reform. At our hearing, four experts in the field testified about current health care workforce shortages, especially in primary care and nursing, and the witnesses told us that we must address these health workforce needs to meaningfully reform our health system. Dr. David Goodman, the director of the Center for Health Policy Research, said: ``The workforce we train today will shape, for good or bad, tomorrow's health system.'' Dr. Goodman continued, ``It will be hard to improve access, achieve better health outcomes and decrease health care expenditure growth rates unless we get workforce policy right.'' I could not agree more. Our efforts on health care reform are only as strong as our Nation's health care providers--the nurses, doctors, and other professionals-- who are on the front lines caring for patients. Investing in our health care workforce is critical as we work to expand health insurance coverage to millions of currently uninsured Americans. During our hearing, Dr. Allan Goroll, a primary care doctor and professor at Harvard University, told us about the Massachusetts experience following the enactment of State health reform. Dr. Goroll said that some newly insured people in Massachusetts are waiting up to 2 months to get a doctor's appointment. That is simply unacceptable. For our health care reform efforts to succeed, we must directly address these health workforce challenges. It starts with primary care. Our current system greatly undervalues primary care. As a result, fewer students are going into the field. A recent study found that only 1 in 50 medical students plans a career in primary care internal medicine. That is down from more than one in five in the early 1990s. This trend is especially troubling, because it is clear that a strong primary care system is a key determinant of high quality, efficient medical care. During our hearing, we learned that areas of the country with a high proportion of primary care doctors spend less money on health care. And patients there have the same or better outcomes. We need to invest in our Nation's primary care providers to help improve the quality of our medical care and to bring down health care costs. Our workforce challenges extend beyond primary care. Our Nation's hospitals continue to face a nursing shortage. Recent news reports tell of shortages of general surgeons and dentists in rural areas. Many parts of the country need more mental health practitioners. And the list could go on. We need to tackle these challenges head-on. We need to place our Nation's health care workforce on sound footing. And we need to meet the medical needs of all Americans. This is going to require a renewed focus on the way that we pay for and deliver health care. We must ensure our payment systems reward high quality medical care and encourage medical students to go into critical fields like primary care. And we are going to need to take a hard look at our national workforce policies to make sure that our health care providers have the right training and skills to deliver excellent care. This effort is vital for our health reform efforts to succeed. So let's get to work now. Let's work together to strengthen our Nation's health care workforce. Let's build a health care system that delivers high-quality medical care for everyone. And let's act now.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, over the past week, we have heard a lot about AIG paying out $165 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products unit. This is the same company that took $170 billion in taxpayer money just to stay afloat. The Government owns 80 percent of AIG. Yet some people in the Government say that they were not able to do anything to stop these bonuses from being paid. The country is angry, and I am angry. President Obama ordered Secretary Geithner to use all available legal means to recover these bonuses. But that may not be enough. We may never be able to recover these payments. The truth is we should not have to be in this position in the first place. When we first passed the TARP funding, Senator Grassley and I fought hard to include strong provisions in the bill on executive compensation. Unfortunately, the TARP program was not run as originally intended. Even as we discuss this issue, reports are coming out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are planning on paying retention bonuses to their executives. This type of behavior has to stop, and it has to stop now. Companies should not be taking taxpayer money for a bailout with one hand, and then paying out big bonuses with the other. Across the country, Americans are losing their jobs. They are stretching every dollar to cover the basic costs of living. Meanwhile, executives and employees at financial institutions are receiving big bonuses--bonuses that are being paid with taxpayer dollars. I think that almost all of us can agree that companies receiving taxpayer money should not be paying these big bonuses. Unfortunately, it seems that this type of behavior is not going stop, unless we take action. Using Congress's power to tax appears to be the best option available to us to address these excessive bonuses. So today, I join with my colleagues Senators Grassley, Wyden, and Snowe, as well as others, to introduce a bill to do just that. This bill makes sure that if a large institution receives government funds, and it then wants to pay out big bonuses, then it is going to face significant tax consequences. This bill would impose a 35 percent excise tax on each of the employer and the employee. It would apply to bonuses earned or paid after January 1 of this year. For retention bonuses, the excise tax would be imposed on the full amount of the bonus. For all other bonuses, the excise tax would be imposed on all amounts over $50,000. The bill includes regulatory safeguards that would help to prevent companies from characterizing bonus payments as salaries to avoid the taxes. This bill would also prevent companies from just deferring these bonuses to avoid paying this excise tax. This bill would prevent taxpayers from deferring more than $1 million in a 12 month period. If a taxpayer deferred more than $1 million, then the bill would impose a 20 percent penalty and interest. Some have concerns about the small banks that want to take Federal money through the new SBA program that the President announced. Others have concerns about the larger banks that did not take much in TARP funds. The restrictions in this bill would not apply to small banks as defined in the tax code. And the restrictions would not apply to banks that receive less than $100 million of TARP funds or other Government assistance. And if those institutions wanted to pay back their TARP funds, they would no longer be subject to these restrictions. The way that these companies are doing business must stop. This bill would change the way that TARP recipients and recipients of other similar Government aid operate. These companies would no longer be able to pay out big bonuses or give out huge amounts of deferred compensation without facing significant tax consequences. The country is going through difficult times. Americans are scrimping and saving just to get by. We owe it to the American taxpayer to do all that we can to ensure that banks do not use taxpayer dollars to pay out big bonuses. I urge all of my Colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important bill.