Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 10 a.m. in SD-430. Agenda S. 579, Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2007; S. 1810, Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act; S. 999, Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act of 2007; S. 1760, Healthy Start Reauthorization Act of 2007; H.R. 20, Melanie Blocker- Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act; and S. 1042, Consistency, Accuracy, Responsibility, and Excellence in Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Act of 2007. National Board for Education Sciences: Jonathan Baron, Frank Handy, Sally Shaywitz. National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities: Jamsheed Choksy, Gary Glenn, David Hertz, Marvin Scott, Carol Swain. National Museum and Library Science Board: Julia Bland, Jan Cellucci, William Hagenah, Mark Herring, Truman Scholarship Foundation: Javaid Anwar, and Assistant Secretary of Labor ODEP: Neil Romano.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``An Uneasy Relationship: U.S. Reliance on Private Security Firms in Overseas Operations.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 27, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing on S. 2232, the Foreign Aid Lessons for Domestic Economic Assistance Act of 2007.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the December 24, 2007, ``Year in Pictures'' edition of Sports Illustrated featured a mud-soaked and elated Brandon Day on the cover. Day is a junior linebacker for the Fighting Saints of Carroll College in my hometown of Helena, MT. This amazing image was captured by photographer John Russell following the Fighting Saints fifth National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics football title in the past six seasons on December 15, 2007, in Savannah, TN. The story of this team and the cover photo on Sports Illustrated has really moved me. With all the negative stories recently in the sports world, it was both heartening and appropriate for the magazine to honor the spirit of intercollegiate athletics by shining the spotlight on such a hard-working and deserving group of student athletes. The young men that make up Carroll's football squad truly embody the best of these ideals and Montana values. They have worked hard both on and off the field and have achieved not only athletic glory, but also success in the classroom and have given much back to the Helena community and their hometowns. Coming from small towns across Montana and the West, these student athletes certainly don't demand or expect this kind of recognition for their achievements, but they certainly are worthy of the praise. This group of young men are great ambassadors for the college they so proudly represent and are terrific role models for their fellow students and the many younger kids who look up to them. This strength of character is certainly a tribute to their fine and caring coach, Mike Van Diest, who has taught his players that devotion to school, family, and faith come before football. He demands excellence from his players both on and off the field, as does the president of the school, Dr. Thomas Trebon. Dr. Trebon recently wrote a letter to Sports Illustrated that tells the story of the Fighting Saints. I thank Dr. Trebon for all of his hard work and leadership at Carroll College, and I look forward to cheering on the Saints again in 2008. I know that they will continue to make Montana proud. Mr. President, I ask to have the letter from Dr. Trebon printed in the Record. The material follows. Dear Sports Illustrated: All of Montana is thrilled by the SI ``2007 Pictures of the Year'' front cover featuring Carroll College junior linebacker Brandon Day's euphoric reaction to the Fighting Saints' fifth NAIA National Football Championship win. The untold story about the Saints found honest reflection in the SI cover photo, with Day and his victorious teammates soaked in mud while overcome with joy. It's a story about humble happiness through hard work, where every standout member of the Saints who receives recognition promptly points to his teammates as the real reason for their success. It's the story of Fighting Saint Luke DenHerder, who returned to the gridiron after beating a lethal cancer, while his fellow student-athletes cheered him and even shaved their heads in solidarity during his chemotherapy. It's the story of a team comprised of men hailing primarily from rural Western towns, ranches and farms, from struggling middle-class families, who know the meaning of hard work and who haven't seen much glory in return. Until now. Carroll's story is about two-time NAIA National Coach of the Year (2003 and 2005) Mike Van Diest, who led the Saints to all five national championship wins, all while demanding that our athletes' priorities must be God first, family second, school third and football last. Indeed, the press corps following our team to Tennessee took more photos of our players studying for their final exams and volunteer reading to school children in Savannah, Tenn., than engaged in pre- game practice. This fall, seven Fighting Saints were named national Daktronics-NAIA Football Scholar-Athletes, the team maintains a grade point average over 3.2, and nearly half of our football squad is selected yearly as All-Academic honorees in the Frontier Conference. Yet, the true story about the Saints was told before the clock ran out during the championship game. After each play, our Carroll student- athletes showed their commitment to sportsmanship by helping their opponents up from tackles and shaking hands with the University of Sioux Falls players. In these days when more of us long for a return to civility and yearn to see our star athletes and athletic programs meet the high standards of role models, SI's cover photo was distinctly gratifying. In one shot, photographer John Russell captured both a moment of athletic triumph and distilled our dream of bringing back the values of simpler times, when good men from humble beginnings win out in the end and become heroes. Thomas Trebon, President, Carroll College.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Finally, Madam President, I say again how proud I am to work with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley. He, more than any other Senator I can think of, always does what is right for his home State of Iowa and for the country. I know of no Senator with greater courage than the Senator from Iowa, and I say to everyone, anyone listening, that we are here today in large part because this is a bipartisan agreement. We stood together. We did not want to buckle down, we did not want to cave in to the House and the White House, because we wanted something a little better--something a little bit better--and we stood together, worked hard on this Finance Committee package, with our hearings and amendments we adopted, and we did it very quickly. So we are going to finally have an agreement by both bodies and by the White House, and I am quite certain very quickly, so Americans can get those rebate checks they expected and they deserve to receive.

Mr. BAUCUS. Six or seven minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this is a big one. The victory before us is a victory for 20 million seniors who came of age during the Great Depression and World War II. They have been called the Greatest Generation. They fought for their country. They gave a lifetime of labor. They gave a lifetime of service. They paid a lifetime of taxes. They contribute to our economy today. And now they will get stimulus checks, too, like other Americans. Today is another victory for the Greatest Generation. Today's agreement is a victory for a quarter million disabled veterans. No one can question their sacrifice. No one can question their contribution. They have fought for America. Today is a victory for disabled veterans. Today's agreement is a victory for the rule of law. That is because the agreement ensures that the stimulus checks will go to Americans. It guards against sending checks to people who have violated our Nation's immigration laws. Today's agreement is a victory for the Founding Fathers, who created the Senate and who created the Finance Committee. There were those who said we should take what the House of Representatives told us to take. There were those who said we should take what the White House told us to take. But our Founding Fathers created a legislature with two Chambers. The Founding Fathers created a government with checks and balances. Today is a victory for those of us who want the Congress to work as the Founding Fathers intended it. Today's agreement is a victory for open government. The elements of this agreement came out of the open process of the Senate Finance Committee. Americans need not settle for the products of back-room deals. Legislation gets better when people meet in the open and debate it in the open this way. That is what we did in the Senate Finance Committee, and today's agreement is a victory for open government. Today's agreement is a victory for moderates. Today's agreement is a victory for men and women of good will, such as Chuck Grassley, Blanche Lincoln, and Olympia Snowe. Today's agreement is a victory for people who are willing to reach across the aisle and work with other people of good will, even if they belong to another political party. Today's agreement is a victory for people of courage, who were willing to buck their party's leadership, to buck the administration, for a better America. Today's agreement is a victory for people willing to stand up for what they think is right. Senator Grassley and I will remember who stood with us. Today's agreement is a victory for a better, more effective economic stimulus. Economists agree that consumer spending, fueled by tax rebates, can boost America's economy. Americans over age 65 spend 92 percent of their incomes in any given year. They will spend their rebate checks quickly, and that will boost the economy quickly. Most of all, today's agreement is a victory for the American people. Today's agreement will speed rebate checks to the overwhelming majority of Americans, giving them needed tax relief. Today is a victory for the American people. I thank my colleagues who have supported this package. I thank my colleagues for their help in crafting it along the way, and I urge the Senate to adopt it right away. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I commend and thank the Senator from New Mexico. He is making a courageous decision. More often than not, when somebody makes a courageous decision, it clearly is the right thing to do. It is easy to not make the courageous decision. Sometimes it is hard to make a courageous decision. He is making a courageous decision. I thank him and I know the people of New Mexico are proud of him for standing up and doing what he is doing. The Senator from Arizona seeks recognition.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I have a number of Senators seeking recognition. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, Ms. Lincoln; 2 minutes to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown; 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan; and 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, I understand that the Senator's time will be charged to the Republican side.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the book of Leviticus teaches: ``Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly, and revere your God.'' Today, the Senate can show respect for America's elderly. Today, the Senate can extend needed stimulus checks to 20 million seniors whom the House left behind. America's seniors have earned the right to get stimulus checks, every bit as much as other Americans. They worked hard all their lives. They paid a lifetime of taxes. They contribute to the economy. And seniors can use the money. And because they can use the money, seniors are excellent targets for economic stimulus checks. Because they can use the money, they will spend it quickly. Americans over age 65 spend 92 percent of their incomes. Households headed by a person over age 75 spend 98 percent. That is higher than any other group over the age of 25. And that means that a check sent to a senior will have a greater bang for the buck in terms of helping the economy. The Finance Committee amendment would help 20 million seniors who were left out of the House bill. The Finance Committee amendment would provide seniors with rebate checks of $500. The underlying House bill would not help those 20 million seniors. And the Finance Committee amendment would also provide rebate checks for 250,000 disabled veterans who receive at least $3,000 in nontaxable disability compensation. The Finance Committee amendment would make them eligible to receive the same $500 rebate as wage earners and Social Security recipients. The Veterans Administration would distribute the rebate. The House bill would not provide rebate checks to disabled veterans who don't pay taxes. And the Finance Committee amendment would provide an additional 13 weeks of unemployment insurance. And high unemployment states would qualify for an extra 13 weeks. The House bill does not provide an extension of unemployment insurance. Almost a million more Americans are unemployed today than were a year ago. And 69,000 additional unemployed workers filed claims for unemployment insurance just last week. CBO found unemployment insurance to have a big bang-for-the-buck. It acts quickly to boost the economy. I heard my friend from Oklahoma. Frankly, all of the big ideas and great ideas are ideas we cannot address at this point. We have to act now, immediately. The President wants us to act now with the stimulus package. The House wants us to act now. We in the Senate have to act now; that is, we have to get some rebate checks out to the American people so they can spend those checks, those dollars, and prime the economy. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve System has done his part by lowering interest rates to help keep our economy from going into recession, to help keep our economy from falling into high unemployment rates, because we are facing a time of slow growth, primarily due to the problems in the housing markets, the subprime problems, which cascade into securitized loans and which, frankly, were peddled in a way that caused a lot of investors in our country to not know, frankly, what they were investing in. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Mr. Bernanke, also wants this package now. He knows what he is talking about because he is, after all, probably the best economist in this country at the moment. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve System is saying that, in addition to lowering rates, we should have the stimulus package passed. We on the Senate Finance Committee did improve upon the House-passed bill. We decided not to replace it but improve upon it, so that any changes we make can be easily folded into the House-passed bill, and get the final product on the President's desk very quickly. Nobody wants to hold up the stimulus checks or hold up stimulating the economy. So I am quite confident we will get this resolved quickly, with improvements. The research organization economy.com found that each dollar spent on extended unemployment insurance benefits generates $1.64 in increased economic activity. Don't forget, we passed a bipartisan stimulus bill after 9/11, and that contained an extension of unemployment insurance. The President signed that bill. We should do the same now. Further, we are adding a provision--it sounds technical, but it is simple--that would extend the carryback period for net operating losses for companies from 2 years to 5 years. Very simply, the bonus depreciation and expensing provisions help companies that make a profit--many companies during this low economic growth time are not making money--it seems fair they be included in the stimulus package, and that is why it is very important that provision be enacted. This provision will help the housing industry, especially homebuilders, from going belly up. There were a lot of loans made that should not have been made. The more we can show to the American people that we are thinking about them, that we are trying to add a stimulus to the Nation's economy, the better, including showing to the housing industry that by making a change in the tax laws they can carry back current losses to earlier profitable years so they can make payrolls and not have to go belly up. I might add, we also in the Senate Finance Committee package--the House does not do this--tighten up provisions that make it extremely difficult for illegal aliens to get these rebate checks. That is very important. It is not in the House bill. We have that provision in the Senate bill. Finally, this is clearly the right thing to do. It is clearly right that 20 million seniors and about 250,000 disabled veterans be included in the rebate check program. We do that in our bill. There are some other provisions, but that is the core of what we are doing here. Clearly, the House will accept these changes, there is no doubt about that. The President can sign it, and we can get this rebate program up and going. We can get it passed very quickly. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, for 6 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows, interns, and detailees of the staff of the Finance Committee be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the economic stimulus bill: Mary Baker, Tom Louthan, Elise Stein, Susan Hinck, Suzanne Payne, Hy Hinojosa, Connie Cookson, Mollie Lane, Ben Miller, Emily Schwartz, Tyler Gamble, Blake Thompson, Michael Bagel, and Kayleigh Brown.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the Book of Proverbs teaches: Listen to your father, who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old. This afternoon, the Senate will begin to address whether we honor our mothers and fathers, our grandmothers and grandfathers. The Senate will begin to address whether we extend needed stimulus checks to 20 million seniors whom the House of Representatives left behind. The author Pearl S. Buck said: Our society must make it . . . possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members. This afternoon, the Senate will begin to be tested. The Senate will be tested whether it cares for 20 million seniors or deserts them, as did the House of Representatives. America's seniors deserve to get stimulus checks every bit as much as other Americans. They worked hard, very hard all their lives. They paid a lifetime of taxes. They contribute to the economy. And with the economy turning down, seniors can use the stimulus checks every bit as much as other Americans. Everyone knows the Social Security check does not pay the bills. The average retiree's Social Security check is about $1,000 a month, and with the current hard times and gas, food, and health care costs all increasing, it makes it even more difficult for them. Two out of three Social Security beneficiaries get most of their income from Social Security. Two out of three get most of their income from Social Security. Social Security is the only income for nearly one in five seniors, and without Social Security, most older Americans would live in poverty. Without Social Security, more than 50 percent of senior citizens would be living in poverty today. Because they can use the money, seniors are excellent targets for economic stimulus checks. Because they can use the money, they will spend it quickly. The chart I have next to me is a reminder that the Senate bill provides rebate checks for 20 million Americans. The House of Representatives excludes rebate checks for these 20 million Americans. Americans over age 65 spend 92 percent of their incomes. Households headed by a person over age 75 spend 98 percent of their income. That is higher than any other demographic group over the age of 25. Seniors spend their money. That means checks sent to seniors will have a greater bang for the buck in terms of helping the economy. The Finance Committee amendment will help 20 million seniors left out of the House bill. The Finance Committee amendment will provide seniors with rebate checks of $500, and the House bill will not help those 20 million seniors. The Finance Committee amendment will also provide rebate checks for a quarter of a million disabled veterans who receive at least $3,000 in nontaxable disability income. The Finance Committee amendment would make them eligible to receive the same rebate checks as wage earners and Social Security recipients. It is not right to exclude 250,000 disabled veterans from getting a rebate check, which is what happened under the House bill. Those folks will get rebate checks under the Senate bill and the Veterans' Administration will distribute the rebates. The House bill, again, does not provide disabled veterans who don't pay taxes with rebate checks. The Finance Committee amendment would provide an additional 13 weeks of unemployment insurance, and high unemployment States will qualify for an extra 13 weeks. The House bill does not provide an extension of unemployment insurance, whether it is 13 or the extra. Almost a million more Americans are unemployed today than there were a year ago. One million more are unemployed today than a year ago, and 69,000 additional unemployed workers filed claims last week. The Finance Committee amendment has been endorsed by AARP, the Seniors Coalition, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Military Officers Association of American, Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Legion, the United Spinal Association, and the Disabled American Veterans. Again, seniors groups and disabled groups strongly endorse the Finance Committee amendment, clearly because they get benefits. Let us listen to our fathers who gave us life and not despise our mothers. Let us not desert our seniors or disabled veterans or unemployment workers. Let us move to proceed to the stimulus bill. Madam President, I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, very sadly, Robert M. Ball, Bob Ball, passed away on January 29, 2008, at the age of 93. Bob Ball had a truly exceptional record of public service and his passing is a loss to this nation. Bob Ball served as the longest serving Commissioner of the Social Security Administration from 1962 to 1973 and played a critical role in all changes to the Social Security programs for the last half century. He was a champion of social insurance programs, and through his leadership, the Social Security Administration tackled many challenges and served millions of Americans in need. Few individuals have had as direct and profound an effect on the lives of our fellow citizens. And I would like to express my personal gratitude for Bob Ball's dedicated service. Bob Ball began his career with Social Security in a New Jersey field office in 1939. At SSA's headquarters, he served in various positions with the Bureau of Old Age and Survivors Insurance. He left the agency briefly in 1945 to serve as staff director for the Advisory Council on Social Security to the Senate Committee on Finance, and returned 4 years later serving as assistant director of the Bureau of Old Age and Survivors Insurance, and eventually, deputy director and acting director. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy appointed Bob Ball Commissioner of Social Security, a position he held under both Democratic and Republican Presidents--retiring in 1973. During his time at SSA, he helped establish the Disability Insurance Program, the Medicare Program, and the Supplemental Security Income Program. These programs now protect millions of Americans from what President Franklin D. Roosevelt called the hazards and vicissitudes of life--disability that prevents work, and extended old age, both of which can cause severe poverty. Following his retirement, Bob Ball went on to be one of the most active and prolific advocates for Social Security and social insurance programs. He was an influential member of the Greenspan Commission, which in 1983 reestablished Social Security on a sound financial footing, and has written and spoken on every proposal to improve Social Security's current financing difficulties, including the grossly flawed proposals to privatize Social Security. Bob Ball founded the National Academy of Social Insurance in 1986 to promote understanding and informed policymaking on Social Security and other social insurance programs through research, training, and public events for the exchange of unbiased information. Bob Ball was a great American who dedicated his life to serving others. His passing is a great loss to this body and to all policymakers. I am sure my colleagues will join me in offering our deepest condolences to his family and to his friends and colleagues. I hope that we can keep his dedication in mind as we continue his life's work and secure our retirement and disability programs for the millions of Americans who benefit and will benefit from his service.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, a few minutes ago, the minority leader urged the Senate to simply pass the House stimulus bill with no amendments, saying it will be a Christmas tree, so pass it with no amendments. I don't think the Senate wants to deprive 20 million American seniors of a rebate check. I don't think the Senate wants to deprive a quarter of a million disabled veterans of a rebate check. That is what would happen if we were to follow the advice of the minority leader. He would deprive 20 million American senior citizens from getting a rebate check under the stimulus plan. He would deprive a quarter of a million disabled vets from receiving a rebate check under the plan. I don't think the Senate wants to do that. I think the Senate wants to make some very modest changes to the House-passed bill, if 20 million seniors is modest. We can argue if it is modest. I think it is very important. I think the American public would very much prefer that the Senate make some modest changes to the House-passed bill so those stimulus checks can be sent out very quickly. We on this side do want speedy passage of the stimulus package. The majority leader has indicated we will take this up on Monday, a few days from today. My hope and expectation is that it will be passed on Monday. Remember, not too long ago, the President and the leadership in Washington, DC, were saying: Gee, let's get those stimulus checks out by February 15. This is January 31. We can get this done very quickly, in a matter of several days, maybe sometime near the end of next week, well before February 15. We want to move quickly. We want to not load up the stimulus package. Loading it up too much will cause delays, but we on this side of the aisle strongly believe that 20 million seniors should get rebate checks and a quarter of a million veterans get rebate checks. They will not get those checks under the House-passed bill. That is why I do not think we should willy-nilly accept the House bill which will deprive 20 million seniors and a quarter million disabled veterans of those rebate checks. They came of age in the Great Depression and during World War II. Of them, Tom Brokaw wrote: At the end of the twentieth century, the contributions of this generation would be in bold print . . . it is a generation that, by and large, made no demands of homage from those who followed and prospered . . . because of its sacrifices. It is a generation of towering achievement and modest demeanor, a legacy of their formative years, when they were participants and witness to sacrifices of the highest order. That is what Tom Brokaw wrote in his book ``The Greatest Generation.'' The men and women of that generation and the one that followed are now America's seniors. These are the seniors the Finance Committee is fighting for and trying to help with the economic stimulus bill reported yesterday. America's seniors are acquainted with sacrifice. As Brokaw wrote: They know how many of the best of their generation didn't make it to their early twenties, how many brilliant scientists, teachers, spiritual and business leaders, politicians and artists were lost in the ravages of the greatest war the world has seen. They fought for their country, our American seniors. They gave a lifetime of labor, they gave a lifetime of service, they paid a lifetime of taxes, and they contribute to the economy today. But 20 million of these seniors would not get a check in the House-passed stimulus bill. Twenty million American seniors would get a check in the Finance Committee substitute. These 20 million seniors would be left out of the House-passed tax rebate. Why? Because they do not have at least $3,000 in earned income, as in wages, or enough taxable income to meet the test set up by the House bill. In contrast, the Finance Committee plan would allow almost all seniors to receive at least $500. They would have to show they received at least $3,000 in Social Security income on their 2007 tax return. Many American seniors live on fixed incomes. Some earn some wages, some make some money, but many American seniors live only on fixed incomes--their Social Security benefits. Many struggle to pay their medical bills. Many struggle to pay their heating bills, especially as energy costs are going up so high. Drug prices are going up too. Seniors deserve to be included in any rebate program. When we are contemplating distributing stimulus checks broadly across most American families, it would be wrong not to include 20 million seniors of the greatest generation. A rebate to seniors works for America's economy too. It is not just the right thing to do, but it works for our economy and here is why. Economists agree consumer spending fueled by tax rebates can boost America's economy, and Americans over age 65 are responsible for 14 percent of all consumer spending. Let me repeat that. Americans over age 65 are responsible for 14 percent of all consumer spending. Look at this chart to my right. It indicates something very simple, very basic, and very important--and not simply from an economic standpoint but also doing what is morally right for our seniors as well as from an economic perspective. Americans over age 65 spend 92 percent of their income in any given year. That is represented by this horizontal bar on the top in the blue. I will say it again. Americans over age 65--that is what this line represents--spend almost all their income in any given year. They spend 92 percent of their income in any given year. Now, contrast that with a household headed by a person a little older, over age 75. They spend an even higher percentage of their income--98 percent. That is higher than any other demographic group over the age of 25. Seniors spend the money they receive; much more than any other demographic group over the age of 25. Other Social Security recipients can benefit too. In 2006, 18 million Americans received Social Security disability benefits, or survivor benefits. Widows, widowers, and disabled veterans--disabled Americans-- can qualify for an equal tax rebate, too, under the Finance Committee plan. Millions of them would get nothing under the House plan. The Finance Committee bill also provides benefits to another group of Americans who have sacrificed for their country: disabled veterans. Once again, the House left them out. The House said no to a quarter of a million disabled veterans. They said no rebate checks if you are a disabled vet and if you don't have significant earned income. Under the House bill, more than a quarter million disabled vets would receive no rebate. Why? Because they have no obligation to file a tax return. The Finance Committee bill would provide rebate checks for these quarter of a million disabled veterans. The Finance Committee bill would get rebates to disabled veterans receiving at least $3,000 in nontaxable disability compensation. That is it. The House forgot about that. They forgot about a quarter of a million disabled vets. The Senate plan makes them eligible to earn the same $500 rebate as wage earners and Social Security recipients--the same. The Department of Veterans Affairs would distribute the rebate. My colleagues know America is once again at war. Many of my colleagues have visited with wounded soldiers who have come home from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, my colleague from Kentucky a few minutes ago made a very moving tribute to several fallen soldiers from his State of Kentucky. Many of my colleagues have, as I have, gone to Walter Reed and visited with their wounded warriors. More than 21,000 service men and service women have now been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan--21,000. Now, thank God, not all of them will become disabled veterans, but many will. No one can question their sacrifice, no one can question their contribution, and no one can question that they have earned the right to participate in this rebate program every bit as much as any other American. So let us honor the Americans who came of age in the Great Depression and during World War II. Let us honor the Americans who have fought for our country in its wars only to come home disabled. And let us ensure that these greatest Americans receive their fair share of any economic stimulus. That is what is at stake. That is why the Senate should not rubberstamp the House-passed bill. That is why the Senate should pass the Finance Committee's stimulus bill. To do anything less would be to shortchange millions of seniors and veterans who have earned the right to be called the greatest Americans. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the psalmist prayed: Do not cast me off when I am old. Do not forsake me when my strength fails. That is really the question before us as we get to the economic stimulus bill, which is the bill that is going to send out rebate checks to Americans: Will the Senate cast off 20 million seniors? Will the Senate forsake 20 million of the neediest Americans? A vote for the Finance Committee substitute is a vote for 20 million American senior citizens who have worked hard all their lives, who have paid taxes for a lifetime. They contribute to the economy today. But the underlying House-passed bill would not give them a rebate check. The House-passed bill says no to 20 million American seniors. The House bill gives checks only to the more affluent seniors whose incomes are high enough that they pay taxes now. The House-passed bill would not give a stimulus check to seniors who are scraping by on Social Security income alone and have no tax liability. To state it differently, the House-passed bill says no to the most neediest seniors, not only 20 million American seniors, but the House bill says no to the 20 million American seniors who happen to be the most needy. These 20 million seniors have given a lifetime of labor. They have given a lifetime of service, and they have paid a lifetime of taxes. The House-passed bill would not give them a stimulus check. Think of a grandmother who needs money for food, medicine. America's economy is slowing down. Times are getting tough for her. Prices for food, gasoline, and home heating oil have skyrocketed right before our eyes. She has a harder time making ends meet. For many of our Nation's senior citizens, their only source of funds for these necessities is a once-a-month envelope from Social Security. Any Social Security beneficiary will tell that you she has not seen the amount of her check increased enough to cover today's rising costs. I am sure the benefits may be going up a little bit, but they clearly do not cover the increase in rising costs. Again, the Finance Committee package says yes to those 20 million American seniors who we believe should be included. They should also get a rebate check. The House-passed bill says no to those 20 million American seniors. It says to seniors who happen to be the most needy, no, we are not going to give you a rebate check. That is the basic reason why I believe the Senate Finance Committee package passed today is by far the better alternative. Just think, when Congress acts on an economic stimulus package this week, tomorrow, whenever it is, we should insist on that tax rebate for the 20 million low-income seniors who can use that money right now. A rebate for seniors is no feel-good measure. Obviously, it is the right thing to do. Rebates for 20 million more seniors will help the economic stimulus package work better. Why is that? Because seniors are among America's most likely to spend a refund right away and pump cash back into the economy. This chart basically demonstrates that. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Americans over age 65 are responsible for over 14 percent of all consumer spending. People over 65 spend 92 percent of the their yearly incomes. That is represented by the horizontal bar in blue, a little bit of purple over on the right. So people over 65 spend 92 percent of their yearly income. People over age 75 spend 98 percent of their incomes. That is higher than any other demographic group over the age of 25. Seniors spend the money they receive. They have to, in most cases, spend the money they receive. It is the right thing to do, to give senior citizens access to that rebate check. Why exclude them? Why cut seniors out as the House does? That is not right. In addition, seniors spend the money they receive. Seniors over age 65 spend 92 percent of the money they receive, and seniors over 75 years of age spend 98 percent of the income they receive. So seniors will spend that rebate check right away. That will make the rebate check all the more effective in helping the economy. The Senate needs to do the right thing by America's seniors and by the American economy. We should extend the tax rebate to 20 million American senior citizens living on Social Security. The Finance Committee substitute will help 20 million seniors who were left out of the House bill. The Finance Committee amendment will provide seniors with a rebate check of $500 and $1,000, if they are married. What is more, the Finance Committee amendment helps a quarter of a million disabled veterans with rebate checks. So far I have talked only about senior citizens. The House-passed bill does not give rebate checks to disabled American veterans. The House bill does not provide low-income disabled veterans rebate checks. That is, the House bill does not give rebate checks to a quarter of a million, and that is because they do not provide low-income disabled vets with rebate checks. The House discriminates against lower income seniors, 20 million American seniors. It discriminates against lower income disabled vets. It says no to a quarter of a million disabled veterans. We in the Finance Committee say, no, we should say yes to seniors. We should say yes also to disabled veterans who will get the same rebate check as an upper income disabled vet. What is more, the Finance Committee amendment helps people who have lost their jobs. Don't you think that is the right thing to do, help people who have lost their jobs, particularly as we are either in a recession or close to a recession? The Finance Committee amendment provides an additional 13 weeks of unemployment insurance, and high unemployment States will qualify for an extra 13 weeks. The House bill does not provide an extension for unemployment insurance. It says no. It says, no, I am sorry, too bad. If you have lost your job and your 26 weeks is already up, which is the case for a higher proportion of America's unemployed today than at any other time in recent history, the House says, no, sorry. Even though you need the money, even though you would have clearly spent the rebate check, they say, no. The House bill doesn't provide that extension. There are almost a million more unemployed Americans than there were unemployed a year ago. The Congressional Budget Office found that unemployment insurance has a great bang for the buck. That is, people who are unemployed who receive their unemployment insurance spend it. In fact, economy.com, a company which analyzes these things--their person testified today or yesterday before the Budget Committee--found that each dollar spent on extended unemployment insurance benefits would generate $1.64 in increased economic activity. That is a good one. In straight economic terms, for every $1 spent, $1.64 is the result in increased economic activity. The bipartisan stimulus bill enacted after 9/11 included an unemployment insurance extension. President Bush signed that extension. Why don't we do it now? We all know what dire straits the economy is in. The Federal Reserve system cut the Fed funds rate another half percent. When you add it up in the last 4 or 5 months, 1 percent plus three-quarters plus another half, what does that amount to? That is a 2\1/4\-percentage points reduction in the last several months. They are worried. But those rate cuts take time to work their way through the economy. An economic stimulus package has an effect right away. That is why we believe we should have components in the economic stimulus package which improve upon the House bill and give 20 million seniors rebate checks and a quarter of a million disabled vets rebate checks and also extended unemployment benefits. The Finance Committee amendment helps American businesses that need help. The Finance Committee amendment would extend what is called the carryback period for net operating losses from 2 years to 5 years. Why is that important? Generally, a cyclical business has some profitable years followed by loss years. During loss periods, the company will carry back the net operating losses for the lost years to the prior profitable years. They will file a quick refund claim. The quick refund claim acts as a cash infusion and allows the company to survive the loss period. The House bill doesn't take care of that. The housing industry would greatly benefit from an increased carryback period. This whole economic downturn was sparked by a so-called subprime problem, the housing problem, a glut of houses. And the expanded period would allow builders to avoid selling land and houses at distressed prices. Additionally, it would enable less costly financing, improving business conditions for an eventual return of the housing market. The expanded period would give the housing industry cash to meet payroll. That is not a bad thing to do when we are in an economic downturn. That would stop additional job losses. The National Association of Manufacturers has written us in the committee in support of the Finance Committee's net operating loss proposal because they know it is the right thing to do to help maintain jobs. These are all good reasons to vote for the Finance Committee substitute. It would help disabled veterans. It would help unemployed Americans. It would help businesses struggling with the business cycle. It would help 20, I think the figure is 20 million American senior citizens. I start where I began. I repeat this point because it is so important. The biggest difference between the Finance Committee substitute and the underlying House bill is 20 million seniors. A vote for the Finance Committee substitute is a vote for those seniors. Keep this in mind: 20 million, right here. That is the number of seniors to whom we would give rebate checks because it is the right thing to do, to add 20 million to the House-passed bill, which does not give rebate checks, which is clearly the wrong thing to do. Senators should not cast off seniors. Senators should not forsake them. Rather, let us recognize their lifetimes of labor, recognize their key role in stimulating the economy. Look at our senior citizens. They are the real salt, the rock of America. Our mothers and fathers and grandfathers, most of them passed through the Depression era. Some are a little old for the Depression era, but they have values that are so important for our country. They are the people who paid taxes all their lives. They worked all their lives. They provided service to so many of us and our families and to other neighbors in the community. Let us recognize their key role in stimulating the economy, and let us pass the Finance Committee substitute for those 20 million American seniors. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit for publication in the Congressional Record the revised rules of the Committee on Finance for the 110th Congress, adopted by the committee on January 30, 2008. I ask unanimous consent to have the rules printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise to speak briefly on the next order of business, and that is the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. In the 1939 WPA Guide to Montana, it is written: The Indian attitude toward the land was expressed by a Crow named Curly. He was from the Crow Indian tribe. Here is what he said: The soil you see is not ordinary soil--it is the dust of the blood, the flesh, and the bones of our ancestors. You will have to dig down to find Nature's earth, for the upper portion is Crow, my blood and my dead. I do not want to give it up. But over our long national history, we all know, sadly, the Federal Government repeatedly separated America's original inhabitants from the land they so dearly loved and continue to love. As a result of that sad and sometimes dishonorable history, as a result of treaties, statutes, court decisions, executive orders, and moral obligations, the United States owes a singular debt to its Native Americans. In partial fulfillment of that obligation, in 1976, Congress passed the first Indian Health Care Improvement Act. That 1976 law was the first legislative statement of goals for Federal Indian health care programs. That law established the first statutory requirements for the provision of resources to meet those goals. In that 1976 act, the Congress found that: Federal health services to maintain and improve the health of the Indians are consonant with and required by the Federal Government's historical and unique legal relationship with, and resulting responsibility to, the American Indian people. Today, when we get to the bill--I think roughly in about an hour from now--at long last, we will have before us the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 2007. It has been a long trail that has led us here today. It is important we made the journey to get here. This bill will provide better health care for nearly 2 million American Indians from 562 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. We need to improve the health care of Native Americans. Native Americans suffer from tuberculosis at a rate 7\1/2\ times higher than the non- Indian population. The Native American suicide rate is 60 percent higher than in the general population. Medicare--our program for seniors--spends about $6,800 per person a year. Medicaid--the low-income program for health care--spends about $4,300 per person. The Bureau of Prisons spends about $3,200 per person for health care. But the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service spends only $2,100 for health care. That is less than a third of Medicare, less than half of Medicaid, and a third less than what the Federal Government spends for medical care for prisoners. From the beginning of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, Medicare and Medicaid have played a part in paying for health care delivered to Native Americans. The 1976 act amended the Social Security Act ``to permit reimbursement by Medicare and Medicaid for covered services provided by the Indian Health Service.'' Today, Medicare, Medicaid, and now the Children's Health Insurance Program are a significant source of funding for health care delivered to Native Americans. I am proud that an important part of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act before us today is a product of the Finance Committee. That committee's provisions address health care provided to Indians through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Those provisions would increase outreach and enrollment of Indians in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. These provisions would protect Indian health care providers from discrimination in payment for services and require States and the Secretary of HHS to consult with Indian health providers, and they would ensure that Medicaid managed care organizations pay Indian health providers appropriately. It is a good package. It is not near enough. It is an abomination--it is a tragedy what little attention we pay to Native Americans' health care needs. I wish more people in the country would visit Indian reservations. I wish they would visit Indian Health Service hospitals. They would realize the abysmal plight of so many people in America. But this bill helps. It helps provide more resources where people need it-- not near enough but more--and I strongly encourage the Senate to pass this bill when we get to it in the next hour or so. Congress should reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. The United States owes a debt to the Native American population whose ancestors are tied up with the very soil all Americans share. The Federal Government owes a duty to help improve the health of American Indians. And we in this Senate have the obligation to pass this act and honor the flesh, the bones, and the blood of our Indian brethren. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following people be allowed privileges of the floor: Susan Hinck, Elise Stein, Mollie Lane, Kayleigh Brown, Michael Bagel, and Emily Schwartz.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I rise to speak for less than 10 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, is the Senate in morning business?

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair. I would like to make two points. First, the Finance Committee held a hearing this morning--in fact, it is going on right now--on an economic stimulus package, pressing the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, on various options that will stimulate the economy the most and what options will help people who need their money the most. That is not just all Americans who pay income taxes but people who don't pay income taxes, people who don't pay payroll taxes but file because they think, as good Americans, they should--they have no income tax liability and no payroll tax liability--and also some senior citizens who file income tax returns but who do not have any significant income tax liability. The fact is, if the rebate alone were to be given to anybody who files an income tax return, which was not the case with the 2001 rebate program--that applied only to people who paid income taxes--if a rebate were to apply to all filers irrespective of whether they paid income tax, that would reach 90-plus percent of all Americans. Add to that extending unemployment insurance benefits and food stamp benefits, I think that package would really help people who need it the most. There are various ways to put this together. I even suggested as a possibility, so as not to spend more than we should on a total package, that whereas the President is suggesting an $800 rebate for individual filers and a $1,600 rebate for couples, that could be significantly cut down, but give a bonus to households that have children so that a couple with two or three children would get an additional, say, $400 bonus per child in addition to the, say, $400 or $500 payment an individual would get or, say, an $800 check that a couple would get. My point is, the Finance Committee is exploring different ways to make sure we do what is best. Of course, it will depend on some negotiation with the White House and both Houses of Congress. But I want to make the point clearly that we in the Finance Committee are doing our level best to try to find what works best, to get the greatest bang for the buck, with a view toward getting a stimulus package passed quickly, not loading it up with measures that are going to bog it down and prevent passage.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate Senators Lincoln's and Smith's leadership on this issue and I share their view. Although I had concerns about a somewhat similar provision that was considered in 2006, the fact that that there is now a consensus in support of the TREE Act in the U.S. forest products industry, and that modifications have been made, have led me to support the TREE Act, and to work to include it in both the tax title of the Energy bill and the tax title of the farm bill. I understand the time constraints, and pledge to work with the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Oregon, other interested Senators, and with the leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee to see that the TREE Act is enacted as part of the farm bill or other appropriate vehicle early in 2008.