Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 wish now to talk about a package of amendments that hasn't been added to the legislation but has merit. I want to put my colleagues on notice that I will be asking unanimous consent that this package be added to the legislation. On a piece of legislation this large, it is difficult to process every amendment that is filed. In fact, over 600 amendments have been filed to this bill. We have processed 30 of these, but that leaves about 500 not yet voted on. The same was true in the Finance Committee, before we took up the bill and before it came to the floor. In the committee we had over 200 amendments filed and we couldn't vote on every one of those. On a number of them, I asked Senators to withhold from offering them. For some, we were not sure how much they would cost, and for others we needed more time to analyze the proposal because they came to us pretty quickly and we didn't know what it meant. I asked Senators to hold off for a while to figure out what it means, and maybe we can work it out, but it would be best to take it to the floor. Many Senators did that. I pledged to the Senators I would work with them on the floor. We were able to work out many of the amendments. Senator Grassley and I reached an agreement on a number of tax and health amendments, and they are reflected in an amendment that has been filed. As our staffs looked at these amendments, we worked out an agreement on a lot of these amendments and they are contained in the managers' amendment I am talking about. Some were technical in nature. We have several, for example, health-related provisions that clarify the legislative language to make sure it reflects what the Finance Committee voted to report to the Senate. Other provisions are modifications of provisions in the underlying bill. For example, one of the provisions makes sure military personnel can receive the Making Work Pay credit even if their spouse is not a U.S. citizen. Another provision expands on a proposal included in the Finance Committee to help companies deleverage and buy back some of their debt. Other provisions are new, but they are good ideas and simply didn't get a vote. Ms. Snowe, for example, has proposed reducing the estimated taxes that small businesses have to pay quarterly, since most of them will have fewer or no profits this year. That provision is also included in the managers' package. While I believe adding these proposals will improve the bill, it is my understanding there is likely to be an objection to my request. We could not include every amendment in the package. We have done the best we can. I think it would improve upon the bill if this package were adopted. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to call up my amendment No. 572, the so-called managers' amendment; that the amendment be adopted, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, a baker once told Studs Terkel, the great chronicler of the American people: ``Work is an essential part of being alive. Your work is your identity. It tells you who you are . . . There's such a joy in doing work well.'' This body is considering legislation about economic growth and recovery. It is about energy, and it is about healthcare. But we must never forget that we are also considering what is essential to Americans' lives. In our hands is a part of Americans' identities, and the joy and pride they get from a day's work well done. And when we consider jobs lost in America, we must never forget that, in our hands, is also the pain of lost identity, lost pride, and lost meaning in Americans' lives. Last week, Senator Grassley and I--along with Chairman Rangel and Mr. Camp--completed negotiations on provisions to renew and expand our trade adjustment assistance programs. Our provisions promise American workers who have lost their jobs the chance to get back on their feet. And with that opportunity, it offers Americans another shot at the dignity and joy they get from an honest day's work. Trade adjustment assistance--or ``TAA''--has been my highest trade priority. For over two years, I have worked with Senator Grassley and Chairman Rangel to realize this priority. It was a long process, and it was not easy. But I am proud to say that with their help, along with the invaluable support of Congressman Camp, and Senators Snowe, Bingaman, Cantwell, Stabenow, Rockefeller, and others, we have achieved it. When President Kennedy created trade adjustment assistance in 1962, he crafted it to reflect the needs and conditions of the American economy of his time. Our new TAA provisions will reform and expand TAA to reflect the needs and conditions of our economy as we know it today. This renewal and expansion is historic. It is the most significant expansion of the program since President Kennedy created it. And, most importantly, it will help TAA reach more Americans than ever before with the smart and effective services they need, when they need them. The opportunities of international trade and job-creating exports have never been greater. For much of the past two years, growing American exports were a rare bright spot in our economy. Yet with these opportunities also come risks. A sudden shift in global trade flows can send an industry reeling, taking its workers with it. In rural communities dependent on a single employer, the effect is even more sharply felt. In my home State of Montana, the global recession has already hit our mines and our lumber industry. Workers in our aluminum and paper products companies also suffer in this crisis. Trade adjustment assistance gives American workers caught in the crosscurrents of international trade a chance to get back on their feet with retraining, a healthcare tax credit, and strategic support for firms. But as important as TAA is to our workers, it has not kept up with our evolving economy. It remains limited in scope, limited in resources, and limited in its ability to deliver effective services. That is why the TAA expansion that Senator Grassley and I negotiated is so important. It addresses these limitations and makes trade adjustment assistance work better for far more workers. First, and perhaps most significantly, our new TAA provisions extend TAA to services workers. America remains a manufacturing powerhouse, but our economy has also evolved to create a vibrant and globally- integrated services industry. Services are now nearly 80 percent of our economy, yet TAA's benefits are out of reach for all services workers. This legislation brings TAA in line with today's economy, extending TAA benefits to America's services industry workers, whether they are transportation workers, software designers, computer programmers, or airline maintenance technicians. Second, our provisions extend TAA's offshoring provisions to all workers regardless of the country to which that job shifts. Under current law, workers whose jobs shift abroad may only qualify for TAA if that shift is to countries with which we have a free trade agreement or certain other trade arrangements. But it does not cover eight of our top ten partners, including China, Japan, and Korea. This legislation does away with that geographic limitation and expands TAA's benefits to cover all trade with all of our partner countries. Third, our new TAA package increases training funds available to states by 160 percent--from $220 million to $570 million per year. Job retraining programs are at the heart of TAA, and have proven the quickest and most effective way to give workers the skills they need to get back on the job. Take just two recent examples from Montana. Wilfred Johnson lost his job after four decades in the lumber industry. He was 58 years old and had never before been unemployed. Mr. Johnson turned to local TAA administrators and with the help of TAA retraining funds, soon learned to operate heavy machinery. He earned his commercial driver's license, and started a new job with the Forest Service last spring. Daryl Blasing also lost his job at a lumber mill. With the help of TAA, he retrained to learn information technology skills at a community college. Today, Mr. Blasing monitors election software for the State of Montana, a job he does so well that he earned the Governor's Award for Excellence in Performance. Despite these and many similar successes around the country, workers' retraining needs often outpace TAA retraining resources. States including Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina regularly exhaust their annual allotment of retraining funds before the year is out. Our new provisions remedy that funding shortfall and will make TAA training as effective as it could be. Fourth, this reform also strengthens programs that offer American companies and farmers strategic assistance to keep them competitive and to keep their workers on the job. Struggling farmers will be eligible for targeted and intensive technical assistance under the TAA for Farmers program, leading to a better business plan and the seed money to get that plan off the ground. We also more than triple the resources to back the successful TAA for Firms program, which partners small businesses with industry experts to improve their efficiency and competitiveness. Fifth, I have worked with Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Bingaman, and Grassley to devise a program to help communities struggling with the consequences of international trade. When a large employer shuts down, entire communities feel the shock. This amendment recognizes the community-wide effects of trade and offers community-wide solutions. Under the new TAA for Communities program, grants to technical colleges and public-private partnerships will help identify and invest in new viable and competitive industries. These small investments will help entire communities grow. Sixth, our new TAA provisions take steps to ensure trade displaced workers have access to health care through a workable health coverage tax credit program. Under current law, TAA-eligible workers can receive a 65 percent tax credit to buy certain health insurance. Our legislation will improve the affordability of health coverage for trade displaced workers by increasing the tax credit subsidy to 80 percent. It will also provide workers retroactive reimbursement for premium costs that are paid while waiting to get enrolled in the health program. Our legislation also improves coverage for spouses and dependents and establishes new rules to protect workers from being denied coverage based on pre-existing health conditions. Our proposal also increases transparency around the costs and availability of health benefits and puts stronger mechanisms in placing for ensuring workers have accurate and timely information about their health coverage options. There are many other aspects to our TAA package. I am introducing into the record a detailed description of our provisions. Senator Grassley and I prepared this document with Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rangel and Ranking Minority Member Camp. This document is meant to serve as the legislative history of these many provisions, as well as to provide the rationale for the amendments we propose to current law. Madam President, during this debate my colleagues have talked a lot about the promise of our economy and hope for the future. I too am hopeful. I am hopeful because I know that with this legislation, we are trying to do what is best for America. I am also hopeful because I believe, as Studs Terkel wrote, ``Hope has never trickled down. It has always sprung up.'' It will again spring up from the Americans who work to stay competitive in their current jobs. And hope will spring from those courageous and innovative workers who retrain for new jobs. Our provisions to renew and expand Trade Adjustment Assistance will help them do that. I urge my colleagues to give it their support. I ask unanimous consent to have the report language printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, in each of the last 3 months, more than half a million mothers and fathers came home to tell their families that they had lost their jobs. In each of the last 3 months, more than half a million breadwinners came to terms with the news that they were no longer gainfully employed. In each of the last 3 months, more than half a million Americans suddenly had to make do with much less. Bad as that news is, the year ahead looks no better. Job losses have accelerated to a rate not seen in nearly three decades. And economists warn that other shoes are bound to drop. These are times that frighten even seasoned managers. These are circumstances that concern even bullish economists. The history of the 1920s and 1930s teaches us that we must act. The history of the Great Depression teaches us the costs of delay. We must act to replace some of the trillions of dollars in demand that the private sector lacks. We must act to support those who, through no fault of their own, have been thrown onto the rolls of the unemployed. We must act to prevent the economy from spiraling deeper into recession. The road before us is clear. We must pass the economic recovery and reinvestment legislation before us today. We must speedily resolve our differences with the House of Representatives. And we must get this bill to the President for signature without delay. The bill before us would create or save 3 to 4 million jobs. The fate of millions of mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, wives and husbands depends on what we do here today. Every generation must face its own challenge. Responding to this economic emergency is ours. Let us not be found wanting. Let us pass this bill and ensure that millions more mothers and fathers will not have to come home to tell their families that they have lost their jobs. Let us pass this bill to ensure that millions more breadwinners will not have to come to terms with unemployment. And let us pass this bill and rise to the economic challenge of our generation. I don't know who the manager is on the other side, but I assume the Senator from Texas has more than enough authority to speak. I suggest she seek recognition and ask for whatever time she desires.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I also congratulate the Senator from Idaho, my neighbor. It is a wonderful opportunity to hear the Senator from Idaho give his first speech, and it is also great that he is, as I say, my neighbor. I deeply appreciate the shared values we have in our part of the country. I might say to my good friend that although I don't agree with the conclusions he has reached, there will be many opportunities for us to work together on issues that affect our part of the country. I might also say that--and I think all economists agree with this point--every dollar spent is stimulative--every dollar. Every single dollar in this bill is stimulative--every dollar. All economists would say that--all economists. Now, it is true that some dollars are more stimulative than other dollars. Basically, economists say that dollars spent on roads and bridges and infrastructure and so forth are more stimulative than dollars spent on tax reductions. They all agree on that. In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the CBO sent a letter recently-- actually, the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, sent a letter to this Senate recently--making that very point, and they categorized how stimulative each dollar spent is. The more it is taxes, the less stimulative it is. But it does stimulate the economy, no doubt about it. The more it is not taxes, the more it is bridges and roads and infrastructure, the more it stimulates the economy. There is no doubt about that. And then there is a middle category, which focuses on unemployment benefits, Medicaid, and food stamps. That is very stimulative, because those are the lower income people who spend the money. To say the dollars in this bill are not stimulative is flatly not true. Every dollar spent is stimulative. Second, analysis of CBO and Joint Tax, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Joint Committee on Taxation, shows that 99 percent of all the dollars in the Finance Committee bill are spent in the first 2 years. There is nothing permanent about this. I have heard Senators on the other side say this is permanent. It is not permanent; 79 percent of all the dollars in this bill, according to the CBO and Joint Committee on Tax, are spent in the first 2 years--about four-fifths, 80 percent, in the first 2 years. That is not permanent; that is spent in the first 2 years. No. 1, every dollar spent is stimulative. Some is more stimulative-- roads and bridges more than taxes. No. 2, this is temporary; 79 percent of the whole bill is spent in the first 2 years. No. 3, again, this is not permanent, but it is all going to be spent, four-fifths, 80 percent in the first 2 years. I am a little surprised Senators say we should not spend money here. That is exactly what the Government did back in the 1930s. That is the Hoover approach. Don't spend money, don't borrow money because that is going to add to the deficit, add to the debt. That was what was said back then and look what happened. Every economist says that was a mistake, the Government should have gotten involved, we should have done something, we should have spent the money. And that is what we are doing. Also, what is the alternative to not spending. What is the alternative to not passing this bill? The alternative is conditions are much worse. This bill is going to create or save 3.4 million jobs. No bill, 3 to 4 million jobs, more jobs lost than currently. This is a no- brainer. Some Senators try to get us sidetracked. Lawyers call it red herrings, one theory or another, which is not the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem is people are losing jobs by massive numbers. We have to do something, we have to do something big. I, frankly, think in this Congress not much of anything happens most of the time unless one of two conditions occurs. One is a crisis. Then Congress acts and does something--Pearl Harbor, Sputnik, Depression. Another is if there is extraordinary political leadership. I say we certainly have a crisis, and we certainly have an extraordinary President. Combined--the President wants this, this is a crisis we have to deal with--let's stand and do what the American people want us to do and not haggle, not bicker, not get partisan. This is pretty simple stuff. It is a big problem and requires a big solution. This solution is a good solution. I strongly urge my colleagues to support it because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, since this recession began, 3.6 million mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers, wives and husbands have lost their jobs. On the Senate floor today, we have the power to keep 3 to 4 million more Americans from losing their jobs. We have crafted this bill to accomplish this end. Ninety-nine percent of the Finance Committee's legislation will take effect in the first 2 years and 79 percent of the total bill's fiscal effects will take place in the first 2 years. The question is merely whether we will act. Our duty is clear. Let us reject half measures. Let us reject delay. Let us not be found on the wrong side of history. Let us rise to the economic challenge of our generation. Let us preserve millions of American jobs and let us pass this bill today.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I will yield to the Senator from California such time as she desires.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, an earlier speaker, the Senator from Arizona, made some comments regarding Pell grants which I think should be addressed. He essentially said that spending on Pell grants; that is, helping young Americans go to college, would not help the economy. He was opposed to the increases in the Pell grant. I am surprised he made that statement, because I think it is inaccurate. Let me explain why. First, money in the hands of low-income families--and Pell grant recipients are low-income families--is money that will be injected into the economy quickly. Low-income people who receive money spend it. They have to spend it. They have to spend it to make ends meet. They have to pay the bills. They have to pay a mortgage. They have health care. You name it. It is very difficult--very difficult. So to say that money spent on Pell Grants is not a good idea, implying it is not stimulative, is highly incorrect. Low-income people spend the money they receive. And this legislation does increase Pell grants. Again, Pell grants are the grants that go to low-income students to go to college. That is what Pell grants are. He was suggesting that is a bad thing, it is not good to increase Pell grants. I am pointing out that the money in the hands of low- income families, such as Pell grant recipients, is money that is spent in the economy very quickly. It is highly stimulative. Second, what happens to that money when the low-income families receive a Pell grant? What happens to that money? Well, it keeps teachers working, jobs in colleges, it helps the college meet its payroll. It helps the college meet its expenses. Pell grants are spent. First, they are spent. It is stimulative. And, second, the dollars are spent to help colleges, to help colleges meet their payroll and meet the expenses they have to make. Many State colleges are having a hard time these days because they are cutting back. They are cutting back in their colleges, the expenditures of their colleges. Why? Because we are in a recession. It is tough. Some kids are not going to college as they usually would. Second, Pell grant dollars are not only stimulative, but they help keep jobs at the colleges where the dollars are spent. Third, and perhaps most important, a dollar spent on Pell grants is a dollar that makes it much more likely for a young woman or young man to go to college. I think that is a good incentive, to help people go to college. The economists tell us if a person goes to college, they will, over their lifetime, earn $1 million more than someone who does not go to college. We want to encourage kids to go to college, especially help low-income kids go to college, because they otherwise cannot go to college. When that person goes to college, that young woman, that young man, and earns more money, economists tell us it is $1 million more compared to kids who do not go to college. That is more money that goes into the economy. Now, granted, it takes a little time for that college graduate to earn that $1 million. Maybe in that sense it is not stimulative. But the main point is, Pell grants are stimulative. It is a good idea, and another reason why this legislation should be adopted. I am quite surprised, frankly, that the Senator from Arizona criticized Pell grants, saying they should not be in this bill. And clearly they should be in this bill. It is stimulative. There are a lot of other examples I can give. But that is one I thought needed to be addressed. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and under the order, the time will be equally divided.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I might say, I was going to mischievously suggest to my good friend from Alabama, maybe we can work something out if he can make sure the managers' amendment receives no objection.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this afternoon the Senate returns to its 7th day of work on this important jobs bill. The case for this bill continues to grow stronger every day. Last week, for example, we learned that 3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs since this recession began--3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs. The unemployment rate has risen to 7.6 percent and it is rising. Job losses appear to be accelerating. Last year, more than 3 million families lost their homes to foreclosure--3 million families in 1 year--and many more foreclosures appear to lie ahead. We face the worst economic disaster in the lifetimes of most Americans alive today. History will judge how we respond and let us not let this Nation down. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, there were those who questioned vigorous Government response. There were those who fretted about short- term deficit. We were spending too much, they said. History has not judged them kindly. Rather, the consensus of economists came to agree with the great British economist, John Maynard Keynes. Keynes argued that in times of high and rising unemployment, the Government has an important job to do. The Government must make up for lagging demand in the private sector, he said, and the Keynesian school teaches the best way to increase demand is to get money in the hands of those most likely to spend it quickly. It is true some economists questioned the Keynesian consensus, but those questioners are very much on the fringe of economic thinking. The mainstream--by far the mainstream is that we have to use public money to help pull us out of recession. Our time of testing is upon us. The broad consensus of economic analysis informs us what to do. The question before us is now one of political will. Will this generation have the courage to confront the economic storm of our time or will this generation be like that which preceded the New Deal? Will our generation, by its inaction, be found wanting or will our generation rise to the challenge of our times? The path to address this crisis lies ahead of us today. At about 5:30 p.m. this evening this Senate will conduct a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Collins-Nelson substitute. That substitute is the best clear chance for the Nation to respond to the economic crisis we face. Under the previous order, if the Senate invokes cloture on the amendment, then the Senate will be able to complete action on this bill with a vote at 12 noon tomorrow. If a Senator raises a budget point of order against the amendment, then the Senate will vote tomorrow on a motion to waive that point of order; otherwise, under the previous order, the adoption of the amendment will still be subject to a 60-vote threshold, and the Senate would then vote on passage of the bill. Either way, the Senate faces two 60-vote hurdles for this important legislation, one this evening at 5:30 and another tomorrow at noon. That familiar arithmetic dictates the path before us. The amendment before us provides the one clear chance to surmount that 60-vote hurdle. The Collins-Nelson substitute provides an opportunity for Congress to respond and respond quickly, swiftly. Let us take that opportunity. The Collins-Nelson substitute is a principled compromise. Yes, if I had my way, I would have written it differently. I brought a slightly different bill to the floor on behalf of the Finance Committee. But the substitute makes the change we need so as to allow the broad consensus we need to pass this bill. In the Collins-Nelson substitute, we agreed to trim the underlying bill. But I am pleased the compromise does not sacrifice the main thrust of the bill. So what is the compromise? The Collins-Nelson substitute would trim the COBRA subsidy--that is the health subsidy for persons who lose their jobs and therefore lose their health insurance. It would provide a 50-percent subsidy for 12 months for the purchase of health insurance for those who have lost their jobs. This saves $5 billion. The agreement trims the health information technology proposal. It would cap the amount of funds that a critical access hospital can receive under the health IT provisions at 1.5 million per hospital. This change saves $5 million per hospital. The Collins-Nelson substitute also cuts back on some of the tax incentives. The agreement eliminates the general credit carry-back provision, saving about $9 billion. The agreement trims the recovery zone bonds by providing $10 billion in private activity bonds and $5 billion in refundable credit bonds. The agreement provides a 35-percent tax credit for Build America bonds for 2009 and 2010, with a 40 percent tax credit for small issuers. This change saves $2 billion. The Collins-Nelson substitute trims the number of people eligible for the make work pay credit by beginning the phase out of the credit at $70,000 in annual income for singles and at $140,000 in annual income for couples. This change saves $2 billion. And the refundable child tax credit threshold is decreased to $8,100, saving $3 billion. Other than these changes, the underlying tax provisions are essentially intact. The bill remains a balanced approach to getting our economy back on track. The bill would continue to provide more than $300 billion in tax cuts for individuals. The bill would help working families with the make work pay. Seniors, disabled vets, and SSI recipients would receive a one-time payment of $300. Families with children would also get help. The bill would still expand the earned-income tax credit and the refundable child tax credit. Families would still get benefits for college with the American opportunity tax credit and the expansion of 529 college savings plans. The bill would expand the homeownership tax credit beyond first-time homeowners and double the amount of the credit. For those receiving unemployment benefits, the first $2,400 would not be taxed as income. There are also tax incentives for commuters and those buying automobiles. The bill would also provide a 2009 AMT patch, so that people can keep the tax cuts they receive. The bill contains $18.4 billion for businesses. There are several provisions geared toward small businesses. The bill extends bonus depreciation and 179 expensing. The bill also decreases the S-Corp holding period from 10 years to 7 years for built-in gains. The bill would allow businesses to take accumulated AMT and R&D credits in cash in lieu of bonus depreciation. The bill provides a delayed recognition of certain cancellation of debt income. Net operating losses can be carried back 5 years instead of 2. The bill still provides more than $19 billion in energy tax incentives. These incentives will create green jobs producing the next generation of renewable energy sources, wind, solar, geothermal, spur development of alternatives, and help to combat climate change by reducing our use of carbon-emitting fuels. The bill would extend and modify the renewable energy production tax credit for qualifying facilities, in order to make the credit more useable in the economic environment. The bill includes additional funding for clean renewable energy bonds to finance facilities that generate electricity from renewable resources and conservation bonds for States to use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency is often cited as the low-hanging fruit, the easiest way for us to reduce our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. We have included incentives for energy efficiency. The value of the existing credit for energy efficient homes is increased and the limitations on specific energy-efficient property are eliminated. The credits for various types of energy efficient property, for both residential and business, are extended. The bill has two new tax credits designed to spur our alternative energy and production. The advanced energy research and development credit provides an enhanced 20 percent R&D credit for research expenditures incurred in the fields of fuel cells, energy storage, renewable energy, energy conservation technology, efficient transmission and distribution of electricity, and carbon capture and sequestration. The second tax credit is an advanced energy investment credit for facilities engaged in the manufacture of advanced energy property. These energy tax incentives will help to keep our alternative energy sector moving forward as we confront the growing demand for clean, renewable energy. The bill would provide recovery provisions totaling $9.6 billion. The bill would provide for several types of bonds to help depressed areas, including recovery zone bonds, tribal economic development bonds, high speed rail bonds, and broadband bonds. The new markets tax credit would be extended. The bill would accelerate the low-income housing tax credit. The bill would also provide $14.3 billion in help for municipal bond markets. This recovery bill includes changes that will free up this market, unlocking cash for infrastructure investment. Banks would be able to inject more capital into projects, creating demand for municipal bonds, and driving down interest rates. And increasing the small issuer exception would increase the range of municipalities from whom banks could buy. The bill would also eliminate tax-exempt interest on private activity bonds as a preference item under the alternative minimum tax. This change would draw new investors and help stabilize the market. The legislation would also establish parity for tribal governments on $2 billion of tax exempt bonds. This important change would put Tribal governments on equal footing with other government issuers. The bill would maintain the new tax-credit bond option, giving State and local governments a new tool to finance infrastructure projects. The bill would also eliminate the 3 percent withholding requirement for Government contractors. The tax components of the bill are diversified. They would spur our economy from several directions. On health matters, the Collins-Nelson substitute preserves much of the health IT investment that the original bill proposed. These sound investments will pay dividends in the future. They would reduce health care costs and improve health care quality. The health IT provisions preserved in this bill will also help patients to make better decisions about their health care. I am pleased that these provisions remain intact. And the provisions have been improved by the amendments offered by Senator Enzi last week. The Collins-Nelson substitute also maintains the important protections that we provided in the original bill to State Medicaid programs. As we heard in the floor debate, the rise in unemployment has placed significant strain on Medicaid. Decreased revenue coming in means less money to fund Medicaid. And experts warn that every percentage point increase in unemployment adds 1 million more people to the Medicaid and CHIP rolls. The substitute before us today would provide much-needed relief to every State through a temporary increase in the Federal share of Medicaid funding. This funding would prevent States from making further cuts to a program that is already in dire circumstances due to the economic downturn. And the substitute also preserved the critical extension of emergency unemployment benefits. It also maintains the improvements to our unemployment insurance program by increasing and extending benefits to those currently looking for work. A key component of the economic recovery package helps unemployed workers maintain their health coverage. When workers lose their jobs, they lose more than their paychecks. They often lose their health insurance coverage, as well. Losing job-based health insurance can have tragic consequences. The initial proposal provided a 65-percent subsidy for COBRA coverage for up to 9 months. The Collins-Nelson substitute shaved that coverage back to a 50-percent subsidy for 12 months. By doing so, we saved $5 billion. I am concerned that a 50-percent subsidy might not provide enough relief. In the future, I will look for ways to maximize participation in this program for people who want to keep their health coverage. But the product before us today is the result of principled and bipartisan negotiation. This is a compromise across the aisle in the finest tradition of the Senate. But we do not have time to waste. We must act quickly to pass the Collins-Nelson substitute. We must work quickly with the House in conference to reach consensus and put this bill on the President's desk without delay. Let us not repeat the dithering of the late 1920s and early 1930s. Let us summon the courage to confront the economic challenge of our times. And when the roll is called this evening, let us invoke cloture on the Collins-Nelson substitute.

Mr. BAUCUS. That would be my intention.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time remaining allocated to this bill be equally divided and that all time in quorum calls be charged equally to each side.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, it is worth repeating until it is understood: According to CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation, 99 percent of all the Finance Committee bill is spent in the first 2 years. If we add the whole bill together, the Finance Committee portion and the Appropriations Committee portion, 79 percent is spent in the first 2 years. This is an approach to get money spent quickly.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I just want to remind my good friends on the other side, this bill also cuts taxes by $300 billion. It is a tax cut. My colleagues love tax cuts. This bill cuts taxes by $300 billion.

Mr. BAUCUS. Very much I like tax cuts.

Mr. BAUCUS. But I might say, all I hear is complaints. I know the Senators on the other side like tax cuts, but they do not talk about the good stuff in this bill. There is a lot that is good about this bill, and it would just be great if they would talk about some of the good provisions as well because I know all my colleagues like tax cuts, including my dear friends on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 10 minutes immediately prior to the cloture vote today, as well as the 10 minutes prior to the 12 noon vote on Tuesday, February 10, be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority leader controlling the final 5 minutes prior to the vote on each day covered in this agreement.

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