Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I understand the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, wishes to speak. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa. I think he has some time he wishes to use as well.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I wish to set the record straight on a few points that speakers on the other side of the aisle have made. I think it would be totally unfair if they go unchallenged and the record is not set straight. The Senator from Oklahoma said the bill before us is the biggest spending bill ever. That is not true. It is true this is a big bill, and that is because the economy is in such dire shape and because we are in a recession. That is a big problem. It needs to be faced. This is a big bill, and I would suggest the appropriate response to a big problem is a big bill. An inappropriate response would be not a big bill to a very big problem. I might say that this is a big problem also because economists project that the economy is likely to suffer $2 trillion to $3 trillion less growth because of this recession than would have occurred with full employment. Again, that is $2 trillion to $3 trillion of less growth because of the recession than would have occurred with full employment. We have a lot of lost jobs, as we know. We need to do something pretty significant about that. The size of the bill is an appropriate level to try to replace some of the activity this recession is robbing from our economy. The second point is this is not the largest bill that Congress has ever considered. That assertion, made by a Senator on the floor not long ago, was inaccurate; it is not true. The fact is, in past years, we have passed legislation that would cut taxes by trillions of dollars and all in one bill. Those who call this the largest bill in history are forgetting recent history. The 2001 Bush tax cuts, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, was estimated back then to cost $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Frankly, I think it turned out to be more than that. It was a larger bill than this. This is a $827 billion bill; that was about $1.3 trillion. I also think it is important for us to remember that as of October of last year, Congress had approved a total of $864 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and for enhanced security at military bases from 2001 through 2009. About $657 billion of that amount, about 76 percent, was approved for the war in Iraq, and the conflict is not over yet. So an accurate tabulation would conclude that the Afghan and Iraq wars are bigger than the stimulus bill before us. So it is inaccurate that this is the largest spending bill we have ever had. Next, the Senator from South Dakota asserted that the mandatory spending in the bill is permanent. That is not accurate. The spending in this bill is not permanent. The spending provisions in this bill are nearly all sunsetted, not permanent. We have crafted a bill that has its effects in the first 2 years. I remind my colleagues that according to CBO and the Joint Committee on Tax, a nonpartisan, bipartisan professional staff, whose job it is to analyze legislation before us, concluded that 79 percent of the effect of the Finance Committee provisions would take effect the first two years. That doesn't sound like it is permanent to me. The Joint Committee on Tax and CBO, in a combined analysis, concludes that 79 percent of the entire bill's effect will be spent in the first 2 years. That is not my statement. That is CBO, made up of very highly trained professionals who deal with these issues. So it is not true that this spending goes on forever. This bill is very temporary, by definition. Another colleague on the other side complained that this doesn't do enough for small business. Let's see if that is true. The business provisions in the bill, like the loss carrybacks, help small businesses by providing immediate cash to help them meet payroll and make investments. That can clearly help all businesses. In addition, the bill has something specifically targeted at small businesses that are trying to make ends meet. That is expanded expenses in section 179. That section is a provision in the law that allows businesses to fully expense their expenditures for that year. They don't have to depreciate and apply that depreciation against earnings in subsequent years. Rather, they can fully expense the expenses. I forgot the cutoff, but it is around $700,000 or $800,000. It is significant. That is in this bill. Also, there are other business provisions, such as the extension of bonus depreciation. We extend that provision in current law, and that is extended next year. That provision says any expenses that any company makes can be fully expensed irrespective of the size and purpose--50 percent can be fully expensed in the first year, and the rest has to be amortized. That is a big boon for small business. There are many other provisions. We picked up some of the big ones. I mentioned the 5-year carryback of operating loss. That helps business. Section 179 is targeted only to small business. There is delayed recognition of certain cancellations of debt income. There is a small business capital gains provision. That will help small business and also the S-corp holding period. Most small businesses or S-corps-- there is a provision here of half a billion dollars relief over 10 years. Altogether, the tax portion of the bill contains about $28 billion worth of provisions targeted to small business. This bill certainly contains provisions that are very helpful. So the assertion that there is nothing in this bill to help small business is simply inaccurate. Fourth, two Senators said this bill spends hundreds of thousands of dollars for every job this bill creates. A lot of Senators are throwing a lot of numbers around. It is kind of wild. That is one of them. That is wildly inflated. Why? First, those who make that assertion simply divide the total cost of the bill by the number of jobs created in any 1 year. This bill spends out over 2 years, not 1 year. The jobs it preserves or creates will extend over 2 years and longer. Thus, the Senators need to cut their estimates per job at least in half. They take 1-year numbers, and we are talking about 2 years. When this bill is passed with the jobs it creates or preserves, the people who would get those jobs will pay taxes, payroll taxes, income taxes. Thus, they bring money back into the Treasury. That also helps cut taxes, the total number of dollars per job. A fair analysis would cut first their assertion in half, and it would add back additional revenues that would go back into the Treasury because of the jobs these people would have would produce payroll taxes and sales taxes--we are talking about payroll tax and income tax. I wish when Senators speak--and certainly they can have their opinions, and every Senator has come to the conclusion whether he or she is for or against the bill--I wish when the Senators describe the bill, they would describe it in a fair and balanced way and then reach their conclusion--not just take one set of facts only because it is inaccurate and misleading, frankly, to the American public, who want us to do the right thing, to figure out a way to stop the recession. I firmly believe the public should have all the facts, and they would probably reach the conclusion that this is the right thing to do. In statements I have made, I have acknowledged this is a big bill. I have acknowledged it is imperfect. But I also conclude it is far better to pass this legislation than do nothing. If we don't pass this, we ain't seen nothing yet, in terms of the foreclosure of homes underway and jobs lost. We will get close to the Great Depression. There is no other conclusion than we must pass this legislation quickly so we can get on to the next issues we have to face. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. I knew you would. I must say, I expected that response, but I must also say the Senator from Alabama knows full well there are other Senators who would like their amendments in and agreed to. In all things considered, in fairness to all Senators all the way around, I think it is prudent to object, so the Senator's amendment may not come up at this point. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska--how much time does the Senator wish to speak?

Mr. BAUCUS. About 6 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield additional time to the Senator-- say, 4 more minutes?

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield a full minute.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, who has done a terrific job in helping us reach this point. She has done great work. I commend both Senators from Maine. The Senators from Maine are the key to a solution because they are the ones who created the impetus to get us where we are. Because of their efforts, I might say, the Senate is within measurable distance of being able to respond to an economic crisis that confronts the Nation. It is the efforts of the Senator from Nebraska, of course, and also Senator Specter, but the Senators from Maine are really the ones who deserve the lion's share of the credit. Because of their work, millions of Americans will keep their jobs or get new jobs. Again, I thank the Senators from Maine for what they are doing for our country. The amendment before us is about creating jobs. The Office of Management and Budget has estimated that this bill could create or save 3 to 4 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this bill would create or save between 1.3 and 3.9 million jobs. This amendment will help us to pass this bill. Literally millions of jobs depend on the adoption of the amendment. Let me restate that. Literally millions of jobs depend on the adoption of this amendment. We face the worst economic disaster in the lifetimes of most Americans alive today. History will judge how we respond. Let's not let this Nation down. We do not have much time to waste. We must act quickly to pass the Collins-Nelson substitute in conference to reach a consensus and put this bill on the President's desk without delay. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the late 1920s and 1930s. Let's confront the economic challenge of our times. When the roll is called minutes from now, let's invoke cloture on the Collins-Nelson substitute. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the following Finance Committee interns be allowed the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Chris Eden, Michael London, and Mai Meneissy.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I object.

Mr. BAUCUS. After the 20 minutes, there then is a period during which Senators can call up their amendments, but they are only amendments that have been agreed to by an earlier UC.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts. Actually, I prefer they use the remaining 5 minutes on the other side.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BAUCUS. Objection.

Mr. BAUCUS. Objection. That is not allowed in this agreement. I am sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you wanted a queue for a vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. You can call up your amendment and it will be made pending.

Mr. BAUCUS. Fine.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we may have to put off votes until 1 o'clock. That is not determined yet, but there is a high probability of that. Around noon, we will ask for an agreement to speak for another hour.

Mr. BAUCUS. That will be the case.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask the Chair now to recognize Senator Wyden.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from Kansas, how long do you wish to speak?

Mr. BAUCUS. OK. Thank you. Fine.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this be a 10-minute vote.