Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I support the Cantwell amendment. Frankly, in the regular order, somebody who opposes the Cantwell amendment should be speaking. I will take a little of her time. It is a good amendment, and I hope it gets adopted. I don't think anybody wants to speak in opposition.

Mr. BAUCUS. Does the Senator from Washington have time remaining?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I urge the Chair to recognize Senator Bunning to call up his amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Ten minutes equally divided.

Mr. BAUCUS. Ten minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky has an interesting idea, an interesting proposition, and we did discuss it in committee. I did say in the committee that I think it is an issue that should appropriately be addressed, and I again thank the Senator for bringing up this issue. I suggest that we now go to Senator Feingold for the purposes of offering an amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest that Senator Thune be recognized for the purpose of offering his amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is time to go to the next Senator. I might say, the language of the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota, the language says an eligible individual is one who has filed a tax return. Many people who work don't file tax returns because they don't make enough money, so a lot of people are getting left off. Next, I suggest the Chair recognize Senator Dodd from Connecticut.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am reminded of the great Baltimore Sun journalist H.L. Menken who said for every complicated problem there is a simple solution--and it is usually wrong. We have a complicated problem: how to get our country going again. With all due respect, this is a very simple solution and, with all due respect, it has deep problems. What are they? First of all, there are 49 million Americans who will not get any tax break from this proposal. Who are they? They are the Americans who are working, but they do not earn enough income to pay income taxes. Therefore, they get no deduction. They are not paying taxes. They are not in the 5-percent bracket. They are not in the 10- percent bracket. They just do not earn enough to pay income taxes. So when you talk about reducing taxes, giving rebates to those Americans who pay taxes, those 49 million Americans who are working, who pay payroll taxes, will get no break. Their taxes are not reduced. I say that because the amendment strikes the whole bill. As I understand the amendment, it takes the amount of the bill and adds it back to taxpayers. The rebate goes to the taxpayers?

Mr. BAUCUS. I am happy to.

Mr. BAUCUS. I might say, Mr. President, reclaiming my time, this amendment strikes the underlying bill. What about States taking people off Medicaid, called FMAP? This bill gives about $86 billion to States so they can keep people on Medicaid, so they are not thrown off Medicaid. What about all the dollars in here that go to help build roads and highways and bridges? Earlier, I asked my colleagues to remember two figures. What were they again--99 and 79. What is that? Just to repeat, 99 is the percent of dollars in the Finance Committee portion of this bill that are spent in the first 2 years; 99 percent of the whole Finance Committee bill is spent in the first 2 years. That is CBO, and it is Joint Tax. It is their figures. Just do the math. The other figure I mentioned was 79--79 percent. What does 79 percent represent? All of the dollars in the whole bill, the Finance Committee bill and the Appropriations bill, total it all up--99 percent of the total bill will be spent in the first 2 years; 99 percent of the Finance Committee bill, 79 percent of the whole bill. Next question: how efficiently are those dollars spent? I have just established that most of the dollars, by far, are going to be spent in the first 2 years--by far. The next question: How efficiently? To what degree will those dollars create jobs? A day or two ago the Congressional Budget Office released a letter that discusses the effects of this bill on jobs, on job creation. The letter says: For all of the categories that would be affected by the Senate legislation, the resulting budgetary changes are estimated to raise output [and jobs] . . . albeit by different amounts . . . [as follows.] What does that say? Without taking too much time, it makes it very clear more jobs are created when we spend dollars for the purchase of goods and services. According to CBO--that is a quote: Direct purchases of goods and services . . . tend to have large effects on GDP. What tends to have less of an effect? I know it is a mantra, I know it is ideology, but the fact is, what has less effect, to be honest about it, is tax cuts. And the higher the income bracket, according to CBO, the less stimulative effect on the economy. For example, let's take AMT: 1-year tax cuts for people who pay the alternative minimum tax. What is the stimulative effect? There is a range. CBO does not know the exact amount, but it is a range between 10 cents on the dollar and 50 cents on the dollar. That is how much goes out into the economy. Not very much. What is the range for purchase of goods and services by Uncle Sam, between $1 and $2.50; for transfers to State and local governments for infrastructure, between $1 and $2.50; for transfers to State and local governments not for infrastructure, between 70 cents to $1.90 on the dollar. Get this: unemployment benefits, between 80 cents on the dollar and $2.20 on the dollar. Payments to persons for unemployment benefits has a much greater stimulative effect, by far, than does reduction in taxes. I mentioned already the effect of AMT. My only point, it is interesting to hear what the Senator from South Dakota is saying, and I appreciate him correcting me by saying that 49 million Americans who otherwise do not pay income tax would also get a rebate. I am not sure the size of the rebate. I guess everybody gets the same amount, whether you are an individual or you are married. But we can create a lot more jobs by structuring the payment as it is in this legislation. A lot of time and thought has gone into it. Virtually every--I will not say every. The bulk of economists, mainstream economists, will say clearly that the job creation effect is much greater with infrastructure than it is for tax cuts. You like to have tax cuts. People like to have dollars in their pockets. But the goal is infrastructure. It is job creation. Spend it early. I might add, I don't know the exact percentage, but a large portion of this bill is already tax cuts. It is large. I think it is 40 percent--40 percent of this bill is tax cuts. I don't think all the bill should be tax cuts. Rather, it should be spread out in a little more complicated way, following the advice of the Baltimore Sun journalist, H.L. Menken.

Mr. BAUCUS. There is no time agreement, I say to my friend.

Mr. BAUCUS. I think we are finished on this one unless the Senator from South Dakota wants to make some remarks.

Mr. BAUCUS. I don't see Senator Enzi. He was next entitled to offer his amendment, so I urge the Chair to recognize Senator Wyden to offer an amendment. Senator Enzi is on.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask Senator Enzi if he is agreeable to, say, a 5-minute limitation on his amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think that concludes all the amendments on the list. We are now awaiting an attempt to drop a unanimous consent request so we can start voting on those amendments. That is in the process right now. Pending the completion of that list, it is probably advisable that we keep the Senate open for debate equally divided until the hour of 5 o'clock. If we get the consent agreed to before then, we can ask to vitiate that agreement where debate be allocated equally so we can propound the other consent. I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5 o'clock be time available for debate only, equally divided.

Mr. BAUCUS. We will try to.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I would like 30 seconds on this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. There are about $20 billion in this amendment of cuts which complicate the package that has been agreed to. For that reason alone, in addition to the reasons already mentioned, I think it is going to be highly imprudent to adopt this amendment. It would throw a monkey wrench into the agreement that has been reached earlier today. For that reason, I also urge that the amendment not be agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I suggest we vote on this amendment by voice.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 297

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Murray amendment No. 110 be withdrawn and the Feingold amendment No. 485 be withdrawn.

Mr. BAUCUS. For the Senators who did not hear, I ask unanimous consent that the Murray amendment No. 110 be withdrawn and the Feingold amendment No. 485 be withdrawn.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask this be a 10-minute vote.