baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. the senate is not in order. please take your conversations out of the senate. the senate will come to order. the senate is not in order. the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i would ask consent for one minute for each side to explain this next amendment. equally divided. one minute each side. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, the next amendment is the vitter amendment 112 which essentially says that the united states must pay its interest debts and social security benefits before it makes any other government obligations. i think that's a bad idea.

one is the baucus amendment. i do not support the baucus amendment. to me, it is an attempt to surrender, to surrender in the face of the e.p.a.'s dramatic regulatory overreach. it's the so-called agriculture exemption. now, when i talk to people in agriculture, the so-called agriculture exemption doesn't really shield structure producers from increased fuel, increased energy and increased fertilizer costs. the factories, the refineries, the power plants that are the glue that holds the farming industry together, that allow it to function, they will be hit with significant taxes under the baucus amendment. the aftershock will be felt by american small businesses and farmers across the west and the midwest. now, farmers and small businesses will face higher electricity costs, higher gasoline costs, higher diesel costs and higher fertilizer costs. everything from driving a tractor-trailer to shipping your produce to market, all of it will go up. now, farms will close and the cost to produce at the local -- produce at the local grocery store, that will g

baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. the senate is not in order. please take your conversations out of the senate. the senate will come to order. the senate is not in order. the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i would ask consent for one minute for each side to explain this next amendment. equally divided. one minute each side. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, the next amendment is the vitter amendment 112 which essentially says that the united states must pay its interest debts and social security benefits before it makes any other government obligations. i think that's a bad idea. that would bring economic chaos to our country f. we default, we default. just because bondholders in china get priority over our troops overseas or get priority over tax refunds doesn't mean we're not in default. besides, it's bad policy anyway. this amendment would bring chaos if we ever were to get to the poi

the korean free trade agreement is ready for congressional consideration, but max baucus, the chair of the senate finance committee, urged action on pacts with colombia and panama, too. >> it's clear to me that none of the agreements are going to pass unless they're all packaged. >> reporter: the colombia trade agreement has been held up by labor union concerns over protections for worker rights in that country. but the american public is also increasingly skeptical free trade benefits american workers, a concern u.s. trade representative ron kirk says he finds around the country. >> i mean to tell you not only in cleveland, but i can promise you, you can find them in ohio, you can find them in montana, you can find them in texas. >> reporter: but the brookings institution's josh meltzer says a free trade deal with korea will have some clear winners. >> there is going to be significant benefits for the automobile sector. the agriculture sector is also going to benefit. >> reporter: the korean free trade agreement is expected to boost u.s. exports by more than $10 billion-- enough, the

overthrowing with oratory and regimes having to baucus and put on the actual field of action. and you know doing some relief work for the. libyan help please gyptian expatriate workers get out of libya but they have not been certainly are not playing a leading role in the thing in standing by this new movement the french are the first who have recognized the national council of the libyan insurgents who are fighting gadhafi not the americans and the french have spoken out very clearly that they favor a no fly zone and the americans have said will stay on the table everything's on the table although the secretary of defense was very negative in his remarks about it just a few days ago so i would say rhetorical e a productive but in terms of actual. terms of x. action. practice no i don't see any alteration carla's going to paris and if you're a raiders ok i say go to paris real quick here the enemy can ask you a lot of people are looking for conspiracy theories in one night and what's going on in the these movements in the in the greater middle east in the arab world specifical

baucus: i rice -- i rise to celebrate agriculture. president dwight d. eisenhower once said farming looks mighty easy when your plow is your pencil and you're a thousand miles away from the cornfield. this weeks reminds us to bridge the gap between plowing fields and passing laws. my home state of montana, agriculture is the heart and soul of the economy. in montana agriculture is not simply a livelihood, it's a way of life. growing up on a ranch outside of helena taught me the values of hard work, faith, family, and doing what's right. values i try to bring with me to work every day. 50% of montana's economy is tied to farming and ranching. 50%. and one in five montana jobs is tied in some way to agriculture. it's our number one industry. each year montana ranchers an farmers produce $3 million of the highest quality agriculture goods produced anywhere in the world. as a nation, we are blessed with a safe, affordable and abundant food supply. our farmers and ranchers put food on the table around the world and help create good-paying jobs here at home. e

wwell, the baucus amendment woud exempt some of these small ones. when you listen to the foreign bureau, which has been very helpful in all of this all along -- i have their quotes here. listen to this, mr. president. quote -- this is the american farm bureau, just a recent quote just this year -- quote -- "farmers and ranchers would still incur the higher cost passed down from utilities, and fertilizer manufacturers that are directly related -- regulated as of january 2, 2011." we will, so if the baucus amendment passes, it's going to still be regulating the refineries, the manufacturers and that is going to be passed down and it's going to be -- the increased cost to power and energy theansdz why the farm bureau is so emfat iefnlgt i just left the farm bureau a couple of minutes ago before i came here and was talking about this very subject. well, the manufacturers feel the same way. the industrial energy consumers of america wrote the baucus approach -- quote -- "does not solve the underlying problem that regulating greenhouse gases under the cle

baucus: mr. president, i was concerned over what the effect of h.r. 1 would have on medicare beneficiaries. and so i wrote a letter to h.h.s. secretary sebelius asking her that question, what effect will passage of h.r. 1 have on medicare beneficiaries. and i got the answer a couple dpais ago. frankly, it was cleared -- spent a couple days going through the white house, o.m.b. and so forth, but i received the letter last night. what does the letter say? i have the letter with me and ask that it be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, according to secretary of h.h.s., the consequence consequs medicare beneficiaries of h.r. 1 are desire, to say the least. i don't have the calculations for pentagon number of medicare beneficiaries that would be feactd nationwide, but i can give you the effect it would have on montana and that would be -- you could extrapolate that into what the effect would be nationwide. essentially, under the secretary's lett

unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside and call up an amendment on behalf of senators baucus and grassley numbered 1 141, that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk. further, that the amendment as modified be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i have another matter. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending leahy and bennett amendments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i call my amendment which is number 143, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 143. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now call up a s

senator baucus, from montana, said i mentioned that i do not want the e.p.a.riting those regulations, i think it's too much power in the hands of one single agency, but, rather, climate change should be a matter essentially left to congress, and that's what we're talking about. as we speak today, the house is macking up the bill. it's called the upton-inhofe bill and that is to stop them from the -- the e.p.a. from this regulation. senator nelson from -- from nebraska said, controlling the levels of carbon emission is the job of congress. we don't need the e.p.a. looking over congress's shoulder telling us we're not moving fast enough. he we have some eight democrat senators joining them saying that the e.p.a. should not have the authority -- doesn't have the authority and should not be doing it. we are talking about such as senators as senator begich, senator brown, senator casey, and senator baucus. that's the reason i feel optimistic that if we can get this amendment up for a vote, we're going to have a favorable vote on this thing. i know all the republica

yesterday, just yesterday, secretary is sebelius sent a lr to the finance committee, senator baucus, that h.r. 1 would have a detrimental impact on medicare advantage. this assertion is or wellian. the secretary knows well that obama-care cuts $2 billion from a medicare advantage program that currently serves nearly 12 million seniors. according to the administration's own chief act wea these devastating -- actuary, these devastates cuts will reduce enroll in these programs by over 50%. further month, c.b.o. has also found that these cuts would also produce important benefits fo for -- by 50% for seniors enrolled in the program. h.r. 1 is intended to halt the harmful cuts to seniors in the medicare advantage program. suggesting otherwise, as the secretary did, is both inaccurate and it risks confusing millions of seniors. h.r. 1 is a good bill. it is solid and responsible, and i will be supporting it. but it is the only -- it is only a starting point. the fact is, we are going to need many more cuts in discretionary spending. the american people and the people who sent us here have n

in fact, the senate refused this idea when we rejected the baucus amendment that repealed 1099 but was not paid for. that amendment fell 23 votes short of passage because it just fiscally didn't make sense. so why are we still here aimlessly walking around in circles when we ought to be marching straight ahead? why are we proposing to send this bipartisan legislation back to the house? because that's what will have to happen when it ought to go directly to the president's desk for signature. our vote today can send a message that we have all the votes necessary to get this done and get it on the president's desk. and everybody can celebrate: our job creators, democrats, republicans, independents. the logic of the second-degree amendment is absolutely baffling. here we are in the ninth inning and somehow our pay-for has become magically unacceptable even though a similar pay-for was used unanimously by the senate before. where were all the objections? where was the demand for further study when we unanimously approved a similar offset for the doc fix legislation? let me be very clear. a

senator baucus, senator cochran, senator grassley, senator hatch, senator inouye, senator leahy, senator levin and senator lugar. they all were original sponsors of this bill. i hope they are proud. in their careers, they have probably sponsored many bills. i hope they are proud of this one because it's done its job, and it really has helped america to continue to honor our entrepreneurs and our inventors. as i mentioned, senator rudman was a republican from new hampshire, once a member of our committee, was a senate champion. he was a true statesman, a man of vision with regard to the importance of technology to our economy. i just want to quote him as we begin this debate. he said this. the issue addressed in senate bill 881 at the time is one which plays an underlying role in the ability of this nation to maintain its security, to achieve energy independence, increase productivity and preserve the quality of life we all enjoy. our national strength and confidence in these areas, he said, depend upon maintaining a leading role in technological superiority. this is what he said in his o

senator baucus said this -- quote -- "the time is here, the time is now, we're losing market share hand over fist." unquote. and i could not agree more with the chairman. yet more than two years into their term, the administration has failed to send us the pending trade agreements for approval. our nation's farmers, ranchers and many american workers are asking for them. they know that new orders will be placed and business will flow from the agreements. new jobs will be created. instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to create new jobs, i suggest we move to approve the agreements. it costs not one penny, which is what we're so focused on these days. congress simply says yes. perhaps that simply makes too much sense. the bottom line is that increased trade is one of many opportunities to ensure a bright future for american agriculture. but there are many reasons to be optimistic when it comes to agriculture in our nation. one need only consider the breathtaking advances in our farmer and rancher productivity. i've long said that our farmers and ranchers can compete with any

just yesterday secretary said they sent a letter toet the chairman of the finance committee senator baucus suggesting h.r. one would have a detrimental impact on medicareha advantage. now this assertion is orwellians the secretary knows full well that obamacare cuts more than $200 billion from medicare advantage program that currently serve nearly 12 million seniors. according to the administrations actuary these devastating cuts will reduce enrollment in this popular program by 50%.hese for the more the cbo has also.o. found these cuts would reduce importantd benefits by 50% for seniors enrolled in the program. h.r. 1 is intended to hault the harmful cuts to seniors in the medicare advantage program. suggesting otherwise as the secretaryid did is both inaccure and it risks infusing millions of seniors. h.r. 1 is a good bill. at a solid and responsible and i will be supporting it. but itbu is only a starting poi. the fact is we are going to need many more cuts in discretionary spending. the american people and the people who sent uspe here have r signed onto the on to the democrats project

however, now, in order to allay the concerns into it, makers of turbo tax -- i have worked with senator baucus to make clear that tax preparation software like turbo tax is not a tax strategy. financial management software, however, is a little murkier. while products like quicken and quickbooks are not tax strategies, tax strategies can be embedded software. the investment banks and the law firms that have patented tax strategies often use software that could be deemed financial management software. the tax advisor article i mentioned earlier and got unanimous consent to put in the record describes some of these. with financial management software, patent claims that include inventions that are severable from tax strategies may be entitled to patent protection. but the tax strategy itself will remain available to all taxpayers. so then it is important to protect intellectual property rights for true tax preparation in financial management software. however, we must be sure to protect the rights of taxpayers to have equal access to legal tax strategies. i yield the floor, and i suggest the abs

senator baucus, he's a democrat senator. he said i mentioned that i do not want the e.p.a. writing those regulations. i think it's too much power in the hands of one single agency. but rather climate change should be a matter of essentially left to congress. i agree with that, and it was left to congress. and we considered five or six bills on this. senator nelson, another democrat from nebraska, ben nelson, he said controlling the levels of carbon emissions is the job of congress. we don't need e.p.a. looking over congress's shoulder telling us we're not moving fast enough. and i agree with him. in addition to that, we have eight other democrat senators who said essentially the same thing. so i think that's pretty well understood. one reason i wanted to mention this before the vote takes place, my wife thinks the greatest problem facing america is the price of gas at the pumps. i know that my wife is not the only wife around who believes that. she was saying for a long period of time, what causes these things? it's very easy because my wife and i have been married 51 years

senator baucus and i developed a bipartisan set of legislative proposals to combat fraud, waste, andbuse. many of these proposals are in the bill that i introduced in the last congress, s. 2964, the strengthening program, integrity, and accountability in health care act. and many were included even in the patient protection and affordable care act. these provisions did not draw opposition from either side of the aisle. tackling fraud, waste, and abuse in health care is one of the areas where there is widespread agreement. but our work does not end with the passage of legislation. congress needs to keep the pressure on federal officials to do everything possible to prevent and stop fraud. there is also more that congress must do in ways of reform to enhance the government's ability to fight this fraud. we need to ensure that phantom doctors, pharmacies, and durable medical equipment suppliers cannot simply bill medicare millions of dollars in just a few months and then get out of town scott-free. health and human services and the center for medicare and medicaid services need then to