Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I wish to speak for 2 minutes on the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak until Senator Coburn arrives. He is due to arrive in about a minute, at 4:05. When he arrives, I will turn it over to him.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I might add, I ask unanimous consent that provided further, at 8:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Boxer amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. We are going to vote at 8:15 p.m. and the time is equally divided.

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator controls time so she can get that 1 minute. That is a gentleman's agreement, or gentlelady.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry.

Mr. BAUCUS. I will take it.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:15 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Coburn amendment No. 109; that prior to the vote in relation to the Coburn amendment, there be 10 minutes equally divided and controlled between Senators Coburn and Baucus or their designees; provided further that the time until 4:05 p.m. be for debate with respect to the Mikulski amendment No. 104, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that no amendments be in order to either amendment in this agreement; that at 4:15 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote as specified above; that upon disposition of the Coburn amendment, and prior to the second vote, there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use of that time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Mikulski amendment No. 104; with the second vote 10 minutes in duration; and that the next Democratic amendment be one offered by the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan wishes to enter something in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates the pay-as-you-go section of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to tell Senators what the lay of the land is and share my thoughts on how the afternoon will proceed. Senator Murray offered the first amendment. Then we turned to a Coburn amendment regarding the manufacture of films. That is pending. Next we turned to an amendment by Senator Mikulski regarding autos. That also is pending. Next we expect another Republican amendment. We have actually been going back and forth with some of the bigger amendments. Then the Republican amendments have been coming in, alternating back and forth. Next we expect an amendment by Senators Boxer and Ensign regarding repatriation, then a Republican amendment, then an amendment by Senators Feingold and McCain regarding earmarks. We hope to have several votes on these amendments today and will consult with leaders as to timing. Once again, I urge Senators to let the managers know your intentions because we want to give Senators notice of what subjects are coming. If we don't have notice, it will delay us. Please give us as much notice as possible. There will likely be opportunity to vote on amendments, but we just need to know what is in those amendments. I thank Senators for their cooperation. Just a word or two about the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. His amendment strikes a provision of the bill relating to the film industry. I might say to all my colleagues as well as to my good friend from Oklahoma, the provision he is referring to gives bonus depreciation to the film industry. The film industry is like any other. I don't see why it should be separated. More importantly, the legislation before this body a year ago providing for bonus depreciation inadvertently, incorrectly omitted the film industry from all other industries. One might ask why that happened. Basically, I will not get into the personal reasons why it happened, but there was a certain House Member who personally decided he had an issue with the film industry, so he took it out for no good reason. What I am saying is that this is not putting a new industry back in the bill that would be entitled to bonus depreciation. It corrects a mistake where the film industry was incorrectly taken out in the last bonus depreciation bill and was taken out for no good reason--taken out for a very personal reason, if I may be totally candid. It seems to me we should get back to a level playing field and treat all industries the same, not bring a vendetta against one industry, as was the case a year ago, but, rather, put this back in because it is only fair. That is an American industry too, and this bonus depreciation would apply only to films produced in the United States. It seems eminently fair to put back in a portion of the bonus depreciation bill that was incorrectly taken out a year ago. That is what this is. This is not adding an earmark; it is putting back something that was wrongly taken out. At this point, I will include for the Record a letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget regarding the bill before us. Director Orszag lays out the urgency of passing this legislation. We are losing jobs fast. As somebody pointed out the other day, the number of jobs lost on that day was the exact same number of people who were in the stadium watching the Super Bowl. That number of jobs was lost that day. That is that day. Then there is the next day and the next day. We are losing jobs. This legislation is sorely needed. Is it perfect? No. Is anything around here perfect? No. But it is probably pretty good. The alternative is much worse. If we don't pass it, clearly many. more jobs will be lost. We will be in a much worse situation than we are today. I ask unanimous consent to have the Director's letter printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I deeply appreciate the Senator from Maryland offering an amendment. Just a couple of points. I am not going to make a big deal out of it. This amendment will cost about $11 billion. It reminds me of several years ago when Congress eliminated the interest deduction, consumer interest deduction. Why? Because there is so much consumer debt that is building up at such a rapid rate. The total consumer debt now is about $2.5 trillion. As a percentage of GDP, it is about 18 percent. There is a concern that this method, this way to help a specific industry is one which is going to add a lot of additional consumer debt. It is also very costly debt at a time when debt is becoming a problem in this country, public debt as well as corporate debt, but also consumer debt. There are also other provisions here which help the auto industry, which got about $13.4 billion in relief in the TARP legislation. Through that, the 30-percent investment tax credit in this legislation would help domestic auto companies in developing advanced technology. In the TARP provisions, GM gets $9.4 billion and Chrysler gets about $4 billion. Those are direct infusions into the industry. In addition, there is $2 billion in grants for the manufacture of advanced batteries and components, and there are other provisions as well. I am not in favor of the amendment. I think there are better ways to help the auto industry. This is not the best way, particularly given the cost. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, this is a letter from the Executive Office of the President, Peter Orszag, basically stating the economic need for this legislation. I will read it in part: Last week, we learned that domestic product shrank by 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, the largest decline in 26 years. . . . more jobs were lost last year than were lost in any calendar year since 1945. . . . The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a well-crafted response to our economic difficulties. . . . it is critical that we jumpstart job creation with a direct fiscal boost that will help to lift the nation out of this deep recession. The plan should bolster economic activity sufficiently to save or create three to four million jobs by the end of 2010. The plan you are considering is estimated to meet this standard. Mr. President, I will not ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record, because it has already been printed. I just wanted to read how many jobs were being lost. Again, this is not the perfect solution. By definition, it is not. All 535 Members of Congress have a different idea on how to do it, but this is a good solution. The alternative is much worse. If this legislation is not passed, more jobs, millions more, will be lost. Congress is going--the economy is going to be closer to the Great Depression of the 1930s. For that basic reason, let's get this legislation passed at the appropriate time. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there have been several characterizations of this provision. It is not an earmark. It is treating all industries in America the same, giving bonus depreciation to all American industries. It is treating them all the same. A few years ago, this industry was taken out for inexplicable reasons. This bill puts them back in, in an attempt to treat all industries the same. It makes no sense to take out one industry, when other industries get the benefit. It makes good sense to keep it in the bill so that all industries are treated the same. The Senator said this is 1 year, or a short period of time. That is true for all industries in this bill. The bonus depreciation provision we are talking about treats all industries equally, all for the same length of time. He suggests that if we put it in, why isn't it permanent? He is probably right. A lot of it should be permanent, but we have to pay for some of this. That is why it is not made permanent, as other provisions in the bill are not made permanent. So if all industries are treated the same, the film industry is like the auto industry and the steel industry, and other manufacturing industries; they are all the same. That is why this provision is in here, to correct a measure taken out a while ago--wrongly--which singled out an industry unfairly. This puts it back in so everybody is treated the same. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. There is in this legislation--first, this is treating all industries the same. Some industries are in a loss position and some industries are in a profit position. If a company is in a loss position, there are other provisions in the Tax Code--which, again, all industries should be treated the same. If you have a loss 1 year, you can benefit from the provisions, with the loss carryback provisions, and the legislation has credits, carrybacks.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, today, we continue consideration of the economic recovery bill. Our country is facing a serious economic challenge. America is in the middle of the most significant economic downturn in the lifetimes of most Americans, and the bill before us is a serious response. The Finance and the Appropriations Committees have sought to assemble the most effective tools available to help our economy recover. Ninety- nine percent of the Finance Committee's response will take effect in the first 19 months of the bill. I repeat: 99 percent of the Finance Committee's response will take effect in the first 19 months of the bill. Today, we begin work in earnest on the bill. We hope to consider a number of amendments. We have taken extraordinary steps to ensure the Senate is considering this bill with a fair process. We posted the Finance Committee part of the bill on the Internet last Friday, and Chairman Inouye and I submitted our substitute amendment to the Congressional Record last Friday as well. So the legislative text of the measure before us has been available for 4 days. During the Finance Committee's consideration of the bill in committee, we had a thorough and open amendment process. The committee considered the bill over the course of 11 hours. Senators filed more than 200 amendments. The committee voted on 30 amendments. As we proceed to consideration of the bill on the Senate floor, we also hope to have an open amendment process. We hope it will proceed much as it did on the children's health bill last week. As Senators will recall, last week the Senate considered the children's health bill over the course of 4 days. Senators offered 27 amendments, and the Senate conducted rollcall votes on 14 amendments. I do not believe we turned any Senator away from offering an amendment last week. We had a thorough process, and the Senate passed the children's health bill with an overwhelming 66-to-32 vote. This week, on the economic recovery bill, we hope once again to process a number of amendments. We intend to begin with an amendment by the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, regarding infrastructure. This afternoon, we expect to consider amendments by Senator Mikulski regarding automobiles, Senator Boxer regarding repatriation, and Senator Feingold regarding earmarks. We hope to consider multiple amendments during the day. This is a significant bill. We have a work product from both the Appropriations and the Finance Committees represented in the pending substitute. Senators Inouye and Cochran will manage the bill for the appropriations matters and Senator Grassley and I will be managing the bill for finance matters. I urge Senators to let the managers know of their intentions to offer amendments. We will want to make sure the appropriate manager is here to respond to the amendment. As much as possible, we would like to give all Senators notice about what subjects will be coming up. In other words, we are working on possibly grouping subjects so as to give Senators a little more notice and to help make the process a little more orderly. I thank all Senators for their cooperation, and I look forward to a healthy debate.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know the Senator from California wishes to make a statement. Very briefly, I might just say first how much I enjoy working with my good friend, Senator Grassley from Iowa. He is a joy to work with. I know of no finer Senator. He is a man of his word. He is a man of integrity and good will. He is a terrific Senator. I have enjoyed working with him on the committee in many respects. I also wish to thank him for his kind words about the openness with which I have attempted to conduct the committee. I also wish to commend him for his AMT amendment to make sure Americans don't pay more taxes over the next year. The amendment he offered, as well as the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez--the two of them offering the amendment was the right thing to do. Some have suggested we drop that amendment. I vigorously resisted that because I think it is a good idea that we have the AMT patch. There are other provisions in here which remind all of us to help taxpayers. One is extending the small business expensing provision for 2 years. That is going to help small business. That also included an entire threshold that was enacted last year. Added to that, we have payback periods for net operating loss extended from 2 years to 5 years, as well as business tax credits extended from 2 years to 5 years. So businesses can carry back losses with respect to credits they have otherwise earned, whether it is an R&D tax credit or an energy credit. So I want to continue working with the good Senator from Iowa as we improve this bill. I do not know whether I agree with all of the amendments some Senators on his side of the aisle will be offering, but we will certainly do our very best to keep improving the bill. There are some very good tax provisions in here to help individual taxpayers and business taxpayers. So I just wish to thank the Senator for working with us on this. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from South Dakota wants to speak for 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan, notwithstanding the pending unanimous consent request, be allowed to speak for 5 minutes following Senator Thune of South Dakota.