Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield my time to the Senator from New York.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand there is a further modification at the desk.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. It is more for less--more tax breaks for upper income Americans, less tax breaks, in fact, no tax breaks for low-income Americans; 49 million Americans will get no tax benefit under this amendment, and 49 million Americans do get some tax benefits from the underlying bill. It eliminates the rest of the substitute--nothing for energy, nothing for education and the other parts of the bill. I urge rejection of the amendment. I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311(a)(2)(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. BAUCUS. It is Senator Coburn's time or another Republican amendment. Senator Coburn should be recognized; then Senator Sanders after that.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I forgot what the question was.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am trying to find a fair way to go back and forth here.

Mr. BAUCUS. There has been a general understanding, after Senator Coburn spoke on his amendment, Senator Sanders would be able to call up his amendment. After Senator Sanders, Senator Cornyn will call up his amendment. Then Senator Feingold is after that, and then a Republican amendment after that. I would like to, frankly, get a consent agreement fairly soon to at least vote on a small number of amendments--say, four, five amendments--get that out of the way, and while we are voting on those, we can figure out how we get the rest of the amendments processed.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. I was wondering if we could voice vote this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up for consideration: Coburn No. 176 and 309; Sanders No. 306, as modified; Cornyn No. 268; Feingold No. 486; Baucus- Grassley 404; Grassley 297; and Harkin 397; that no amendments be in order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation thereto; that the time until 8 p.m. be for debate with respect to these amendments; that at 8 p.m. the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with 2 minutes equally divided for each side.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, that is very unfortunate. The reason for the objection is unfortunate because of the amendment Senator Grassley and I are offering. We are going to have to work this out because I am not going to allow the quorum call to be called off until it is worked out. This is about the Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits. Basically, at this time in our history, with a recession going on, with unemployment, it is extremely important that American workers who lose jobs on account of trade be given a break and they get some benefits, including health benefits. The objection, I have been told, is basically because there are some Senators who want to tie this amendment--the Trade Adjustment Assistance amendment--to either passage of or a date certain on which we would take up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I think that is not a good thing to do, and the reason is, the more the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is tied to Trade Adjustment Assistance, the more it will engender opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I personally favor the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, and I also very respectfully suggest that the circumstances under which that agreement could be brought up are a lot better if Trade Adjustment Assistance is already passed and into law because that will enable more people in the country, particularly folks who are concerned about being potentially laid off, to have some comfort here with the Trade Adjustment Assistance. Then it is easier for this Congress to bring up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I suspect the President is going to be bringing up free trade agreements. I respectfully say that he almost has to. Perhaps some of these may need to be negotiated, but clearly the United States of America is going to enter into free trade agreements, and the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, in my judgment, is one that should be agreed to and adopted. So I say to my very good friend from Arizona, who I think is the one primarily objecting to this provision, that if he would withdraw his objection so we could at least get the Trade Adjustment Assistance passed, then I will work with him to find a way at an appropriate time, when the time is right, to bring up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. But to tie it to a date or to make a connection is going to, with all due respect, make it more difficult for the Senator to accomplish his objectives. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I ask if the Senator from Arizona has a question--but without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Eight amendments, including this one.

Mr. BAUCUS. Right, four and four.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes. That provision specifically addresses the unique circumstances of Rhode Island. It should not matter when CMS is able to make a change in a waiver. What matters here is that Rhode Island had clearly determined that it would make the eligibility change on July 1, 2008. The decision to do so was made well in advance of congressional consideration of an FMAP increase, so Rhode Island has not been trying to game the system. Under this provision, Rhode Island will certainly be eligible for the FMAP increase.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stabenow for raising this issue with me. It is not our intent to exclude those early EMR champions from HIT incentives in the Stimulus bill. My staff and I will work with you to clarify our intent, which is to reward early adopters of HIT like integrated health systems.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Wisconsin on this subject.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator for the question. My State is making an investment in home- and community-based services for individuals 60 years and older, and I applaud these efforts. In 2007, the legislature established the Older Montanans Trust Fund that will enable more individuals to access these services in the long run. As the population ages, there will be greater pressure on the long term care system, and States like Montana face additional challenges responding to the needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities in rural and frontier areas. I join the senior Senator from Wisconsin in urging my colleagues, along with State programs, to carefully monitor HCBS services and spending, not to reduce the commitment to these very valuable and needed services.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 5, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 5, 2009, after the first rollcall vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 5, 2009, at 4:30 p.m.