Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, under the Budget Act, the Budget Committee is the authority on scoring matters. Section 312(a) of the Budget Act provides in relevant part that ``the levels of . . . revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget . . . the Senate, as applicable.'' In practice, this means that the Presiding Officer will turn to the chair of the Budget Committee for projections of dollars and cents effects of the legislation. In practice, the chair of the Budget Committee tends to rely on the Joint Committee on Taxation for revenue estimates. I have let the chairman of the Budget Committee know that I was going to propound this inquiry. I believe the chairman of the Budget Committee concurs that the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that I have just cited are authoritative. I have a series of parliamentary inquiries. Is it not true that by virtue of section 313(b)(1)(E) of the Budget Act, section 313(b)(1)(E) of the act--part of the Byrd rule--applies to conference reports?

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, is it not true that a motion to waive a point of order raised under that section of the Budget Act or an appeal of the ruling of the Chair under that section would require the affirmative vote of 60 Senators to succeed?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent the order for recognition of Senator Biden be vitiated.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on the corridor of the first floor of this Capitol building appear the words of Samuel Adams: Freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country. America still stands as the world's beacon of individual rights and liberties. Of that I know we are very proud. In large part, it is because of our Supreme Court. Our Founding Fathers were very wise setting up three separate branches of Government, including a very strong, independent judiciary, something many countries have struggled to attain, and their failure to achieve greatness is largely because they do not have a very strong, independent judiciary--and I mean independent. The Senate protects the independence of the Supreme Court. How? By seriously exercising its responsibility to advise and consent on the nominations to that honorable Court. It is in the Constitution. We all take that duty seriously. We take it seriously by examining nominees. I personally have three criteria I use to examine nominees. They are professional competence, personal integrity, and a view of important issues within the mainstream of contemporary judicial thought. Let me review those three criteria. First, professional competence. The Supreme Court must not be a testing ground for the development of a jurist's basic values. Nor should a Justice require further training. The stakes are simply too high. The nominee must be an established jurist already. Of that we must be very clear. A second criteria is personal integrity. Nominees to our Nation's highest court must be of the highest caliber. Third, the nominee should fall within the broad mainstream of contemporary judicial thought. Justices must possess the requisite judicial philosophy to be entrusted with the Court's sweeping constitutional powers. I believed that then-Judge and now Chief Justice Roberts met those tests. That is why I voted to support his confirmation. Measuring Judge Alito against these three criteria, I have decided he does not meet these three tests. I do not think he is the right choice for my State of Montana or for our country. This was not an easy decision. I grappled with it. I took my time. I have reviewed this nomination very carefully. I reviewed Judge Alito's prior writings and case rulings. I reviewed his Judiciary Committee testimony and I met with Judge Alito personally for over an hour. Nominations to the Supreme Court rank among the Senate's most important decisions. Only the brightest, most objective minds should serve on the bench. But Judge Alito, in my judgment, stands outside the mainstream. I base my decision on what I think is right for my State and my country, and that is why I cannot support this nomination. I reviewed the Judiciary Committee's hearings. The Judiciary Committee held 5 days of hearings. The committee questioned Judge Alito for 4 days. The committee heard from panels supporting and opposing his nomination. The Judiciary Committee members sought Judge Alito's views on many matters, including States rights, antidiscrimination laws, immigrant rights, due process, privacy, equal protection, ethical considerations, and broad judicial philosophy. Judge Alito responded eloquently, but he provided little detail. Members of the Committee attempted to pin Judge Alito down on many of his views, but Judge Alito did not offer detailed answers to their questions, at least not enough information to get a sense of who he was and where he was. Judge Alito appeared well prepared for these hearings--very well prepared, I might add. He appeared to have been advised to say as little as possible. On January 24, the Judiciary Committee voted to report Judge Alito's nomination on a party-line vote. Unfortunate, but that is how it turned out; again, I think in part because of the nature of the nominee's views. Let me take a few moments to examine Judge Alito's nomination in greater detail against the criteria I have laid out. First, professional competence. Mr. Alito received an excellent education. He holds an undergraduate degree from Princeton and a law degree from Yale School of Law. Judge Alito also has extensive experience as a judge, serving 15 years as a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In fact, he has served more years on the bench than many nominees to the Supreme Court. Mr. Alito's work prior to his judicial appointment focused exclusively on representing only one client, the U.S. Government. Some have raised questions about Judge Alito's experience protecting the rights of individuals rather than the Government. I conclude that Judge Alito is professionally competent to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. Second, personal integrity. Several issues arise from Judge Alito's promise to avoid conflicts of interest as a judge. Some raised questions about Judge Alito's sensitivity to the avoidance of conflicts of interest, and some raised questions about how steadfastly Judge Alito keeps his commitments to the Senate. In 1990, Judge Alito told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would disqualify himself from any cases involving five matters with which he had personal connections. Those matters were the Vanguard Companies, the brokerage firm of Smith Barney, the First Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester, New York, his sister's law firm, and matters that he worked on or supervised at the United States Attorney's Office in New Jersey. In the period of 1995 to 2002, however, Judge Alito heard cases related to these matters. Judge Alito initially blamed the conflicts of interest on a computer glitch. In subsequent correspondence with Senators on the Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito argued that his promise during his 1990 confirmation hearings referred to only his ``initial service.'' He argued that as his service continued, he found unduly restrictive his 1990 promise to recuse himself from cases involving entities in which he had a financial interest. And he argued that the mutual funds in which he was invested were not at issue in the case that he heard. In his responses to questions concerning Vanguard, Judge Alito testified: I think that once the facts are set out, I think that everybody will realize that in this instance I not only complied with the ethical rules that are binding on federal judges--and they are very strict--but also that I did what I've tried to do throughout my career as a judge, and that is to go beyond the letter of the ethics rules and to avoid any situation where there might be an ethical question raised. But Judge Alito also admitted to Senator Kennedy that ``if I had to do it all over again, I would have handled this case differently.'' Judiciary Committee members also asked about Judge Alito's membership in an organization called Concerned Alumni of Princeton. In his 1985 job application to the Reagan Justice Department, Judge Alito listed Concerned Alumni of Princeton as one of his extracurricular activities. Concerned Alumni of Princeton is an alumni group that took the extreme position of arguing against letting women and minorities attend Princeton. When questioned about Concerned Alumni of Princeton, Judge Alito claimed that he had no recollection of ever having been a member of the group. Judge Alito testified: I really have no specific recollection of that organization. But since I put it down on that statement, then I certainly must have been a member at that time. . . . I have tried to think of what might have caused me to sign up for membership, and if I did, it must have been around that time. And the issue that had rankled me about Princeton for some time was the issue of ROTC. I was in ROTC when I was at Princeton and then until it was expelled from campus, and I thought that was very wrong. Judge Alito's response about Concerned Alumni of Princeton raises concerns. In 1985, he apparently thought that his membership in this discriminatory organization was important enough to put on his page- and-a-half job application. His failure of memory now about that inconvenient position then raises questions about his credibility. I am also disappointed that the White House has chosen not to release Judge Alito's tax returns for review by the Joint Committee on Taxation. On December 13 of last year, I introduced a bill that would require all Supreme Court nominees to submit 3 years of tax returns to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation for review on a confidential basis. The Joint Committee would report its findings on the nominee's tax compliance to the Finance and Judiciary Committee. I might add that all nominees who are referred to the Finance Committee--from Cabinet Secretaries to Tax Court judges--have their tax returns reviewed for compliance. The reviews are discreet and confidential. We protect nominees' personal information. And I might say that in several cases we found errors of facts, matters that had to be attended to--and they were. I understand the administration does a ``tax check'' for all Supreme Court nominees. They say they already do one. But I believe it is important for Congress to do its own due diligence on a nominee's tax returns. After all, this is a person who serves on the judiciary. That is a separate branch, not the executive, not the judicial. Both entities--namely both the Executive and the congressional--have a stake in making sure that the nominee's tax returns comply with the law. I might also say, as I mentioned earlier, many so-called tax checks the administration has taken on other nominees have been very inadequate, full of mistakes, and we have had to correct them. The Finance Committee views proof of the nominee's tax compliance as a testament to the nominee's integrity. What individuals do on their tax returns is a window on their ethical decision making. It is a good test of integrity and character. The American people expect their national leaders to comply faithfully with the tax laws. A showing that leaders in the Federal Government faithfully comply with the tax laws sends an important message to people who might consider cheating on their taxes. On January 19, President Bush appeared to agree. He told small business leaders in Sterling, VA, that public officials' tax returns should be public, because public officials have a ``high responsibility to uphold the integrity of the process.'' When I met with Judge Alito, I asked him to release his tax returns for such a review. He initially agreed to do so. But the White House official present at the meeting immediately intervened to block the release saying that he cannot do so. The President was right when he said in Virginia that the release of public officials' tax returns contributes to the integrity of our whole tax system. And his White House was wrong to withhold that information on Judge Alito. I will continue to press future nominees to allow this kind of neutral review of their tax, returns because I think it is the right thing to do. Let me turn now to judicial philosophy. I do not believe that a Senator should oppose a nominee just because the nominee does not share that Senator's particular judicial philosophy. But the Senate must determine whether a nominee is in the broad mainstream of judicial thought. Is this a wise person, not an ideologue of the far left or the far right. The Senate must determine whether a nominee is committed to the protection of the basic Constitutional values of the American people. What are those values? One is the separation of powers of our Federal Government--including the independence of the Supreme Court itself. Another is freedom of speech. Another is freedom of religion. Another is equal opportunity. Another is personal autonomy--the right to be left alone. And yet another is an understanding of the basic powers of the Congress to pass important laws like those providing for protection of the environment. These are not unimportant matters. They are hugely difficult--all of these are. The stakes are high. The Senate has a duty to ensure that the nominee will defend America's mainstream Constitutional values. Judge Alito's record calls into question his ability to act as a check on executive powers. Recently, many have noted with concern the National Security Agency's surveillance of American citizens. At the Judiciary Committee's hearing, a number of questions focused on Judge Alito's interpretations of executive power, and the importance of the court's role as an effective check on overreaching presidential power and on government intrusion. Judge Alito responded that ``no person is above the law.'' But he did not provide assurances that he would act on the Court to balance executive authority. His prior statements and court rulings indicate that he has an expansive view of the scope of executive power and a narrow view of Congress's authority to legislate. In a 1984 memorandum, Mr. Alito argued that the Attorney General deserves blanket protection from lawsuits when acting in the name of national security, even when those actions involve the illegal wiretapping of American citizens. In a 2000 speech to the Federalist Society, Judge Alito said that ``the theory of a unitary executive . . . best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure.'' Judge Alito said: ``The President has not just some executive powers, but the executive power-- the whole thing.'' Some have thus interpreted the theory of a unitary executive to support the proposition that the Constitution reserves all executive power exclusively for the President. The theory would thus prohibit other branches of Government from carrying out any power that one could characterize as having executive characteristics. This view of executive power could limit Congress's ability, for example, to create independent agencies such as the SEC with oversight duties. And some believe that this view could allow the President the ability to legislate through signing statements. When Senator Leahy pressed Judge Alito about his view of the unitary executive as well as his strategy of utilizing Presidential signing statements to expand executive authority, Judge Alito responded that he did not see a connection between these two principles. In a 1986 memo, Mr. Alito argued that ``the President's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress.'' He argued that signing statements would allow the President to ``increase the power of the Executive to shape the law.'' President Bush has employed this method of Presidential signing statements to document his interpretation of congressional legislation, again even though he is certainly not a member of Congress. He didn't write the law. How could he say what Congress intended to do? He has, in fact, issued 108 signing statements expanding his executive interpretation of the laws passed by Congress. Judge Alito's judicial rulings on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as his 1985 job application to the Reagan Justice Department, do not indicate an expansive view of civil rights and civil liberties. In his 1985 job application, Judge Alito wrote that he developed a ``deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with the Warren Court.'' Many credit the Warren Court with expanding civil rights and civil liberties. Judge Alito has narrowly construed constitutional criminal procedure protections, such as the fourth amendment restrictions on search and seizure. In the case of Doe v. Grody, for example, Judge Alito wrote a dissent. He argued that the strip search of a mother and her 10-year- old daughter without a proper search warrant did not violate their constitutional rights. That is his dissent, that is his view. Judge Alito testified: It was a rather technical issue about whether the affidavit that was submitted by the police officers was properly incorporated into the warrant for purposes of saying who could be searched. And I thought that it was, and I thought that it was quite clear that the magistrate had authorized a search for people who were on the premises. That was the point of disagreement. Judge Alito also refused to agree that Congress cannot take away the Supreme Court's ability to protect Americans' First Amendment rights. In contrast, both Chief Justice Roberts and former Chief Justice Rehnquist have agreed to the position that Congress cannot take away the Supreme Court's ability to protect Americans' first amendment rights. This is sometimes called ``court stripping.'' It is extremely critical, extremely important. It is no academic matter. Basically it is that the Congress can say to the Supreme Court it does not have jurisdiction to hear any cases with respect to, say, the first amendment brought by an individual citizen; that is, Congress can take away the Court's authority to interpret the Constitution with respect to the first amendment. That is what that view held. I think it is an outrageous view. I don't understand how anybody can tentatively hold that view. Judge Alito defended his viewpoint, saying this is an academic debate on which scholars are divided. I am astounded at that answer. Judge Alito's rulings on civil rights cases appear to set a high bar for proving unequal treatment. A review of his record indicates that plaintiffs rarely ever prevail. Senator Coburn defended Judge Alito's record by noting that Judge Alito ruled for the ``little guy'' in a list of 13 cases. Judge Alito's record, however, includes almost 500 published and unpublished opinions. Thirteen is not very many out of 500. Knight Ridder conducted a survey of Judge Alito's published opinions. They concluded that: although Judge Alito's opinions are rarely written with obvious ideology, he's seldom sided with a criminal defendant, a foreign national facing deportation, an employee alleging discrimination or consumers suing big business. I am also concerned by Judge Alito's responses to privacy questions at the Judiciary Committee hearings which conflict with his past statements. In his 1985 job application, Mr. Alito wrote: It has been an honor and a source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that . . . the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion. In June 1985, Mr. Alito wrote a 17-page memo providing a strategy for using the Government's brief in the case of Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as an ``opportunity to advance the goal of bringing the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade, and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects.'' Judge Alito advocated a strategy of creating a series of burdens on a woman's right to choose. In the hearings, however, Judge Alito responded to Senator Feinstein that he ``did not advocate in the memo that an argument be made that Roe be overruled.'' In his hearings, Judge Alito acknowledged that the Constitution protects a right to privacy generally. He agreed with the premise in the Griswold case, which protects the right to use contraceptives. It is unclear, however, how widely the right to privacy extends for Judge Alito. When pressed, Judge Alito refused to acknowledge that the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose. Judge Alito explained that he would approach privacy cases with an open mind. On the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alito also wrote a dissent in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. In that dissent, he argued that upholding Pennsylvania's restrictive spousal notification requirement did not place an undue burden on women. Yet Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, wrote that the spousal notification requirement ``embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant of our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution.'' When questioned specifically about the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, Judge Alito commented that he understands the principle of stare decisis--that courts should honor precedents. But he also said that this principle is not ``an inexorable command.'' Here again, Judge Alito's statements contrast with then-Judge Roberts' comments during his hearings. Judge Roberts said in his hearings that Roe v. Wade was settled law. When Senators asked Judge Alito about Judge Roberts' statements, Judge Alito responded that ``I think it depends on what one means by the term `settled.' '' Judge Alito engaged in some discussion about what ``settled law'' means to him. His interpretation of how settled the right to privacy is remains unclear. Judge Alito answered questions about his judicial philosophy by testifying that precedent is entitled to respect. But he would not provide great detail about specific precedents such as Roe v. Wade. Senator Feinstein pushed Judge Alito to clarify the discrepancy between answering cases about one- person one-vote, but not responding to questions about abortion and precedent. Judge Alito did not give a clear answer. Judge Alito appears to support deference to the Framers' original intent. Judge Alito testified: I think we should look to the text of the Constitution, as we should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption. That is called originalism. Judge Alito's judicial philosophy of original intent raises concerns about whether the Court could adapt to a changing society. And his philosophy indicates that he may not take an active role in extending Constitutional protections to new situations in the 21st century. I have some concern about one ruling that Judge Alito issued related to the environment. In 2001, in the case of W.R. Grace & Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Judge Alito threw out the Environmental Protection Agency order under the Safe Drinking Water Act for an ammonia-spill cleanup near Lansing, MI. Judge Alito concluded that the government cleanup standard was ``arbitrary and capricious.'' He explained that the reason for not upholding the order was that the EPA lacked a rational basis for imposing the clean-up standards on the company. This case raises sensitivities for me, because in my home state, W.R. Grace has acted with complete disregard of the health effects for Montanans in Libby, where illness from tremolite asbestos caused by W.R. Grace has hit the community hard. In 1988, Judge Alito commented that Robert Bork ``was one of the most outstanding nominees of this century.'' When I asked Judge Alito about that, he did not provide an adequate response. He ducked the question. He did not respond adequately to many of my questions. He evaded my questions, questions I asked in good faith, intended to elicit what kind of Justice he might be. He was vague. He seemed not to want to talk to me. He seemed not to want to have an honest discussion about what kind of person he is. That is why I find it very difficult to support this nominee. I supported Judge Roberts for Chief Justice in large part because of Judge Roberts' hearing testimony and responses when he met with me personally. Judge Alito does not meet my standards for a Supreme Court Justice. Judge Alito has explained that he will be ``the same person that I was on the Court of Appeals.'' Judge Alito's record demonstrates that he is a very conservative judge who rules often in favor of expanding executive authority and of limiting civil rights and civil liberties. If the Senate confirms Judge Alito to Justice O'Connor's seat, he could change the balance of the Court, tipping it in a direction that could reverse or restrict important constitutional protections. Based on all this information, I will vote against this nomination. I believe that Judge Alito is out of the mainstream. He is not the right choice for our country. On a corridor on the first floor of this Capitol building appear the words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, who said: The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. I shall thus vote against this nomination to carry out seriously my responsibility as a Senator to Advise and Consent on nominations to that honorable Court. I shall vote against this nomination because I believe the nominee is well-meaning, but without sufficient understanding of the importance of our cherished rights and liberties. And I shall vote against this nomination to help keep this great country the world's beacon of freedom.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support the provisions of the Department of Defense appropriations bill that provide money for our brave military men and women. I support the much needed 3.1 percent pay increase. And I support the Blackhawk MEDEVAC and Utility Helicopters, and Wireless Communication Systems for Montana's National Guard. But this was not a clean bill. Although I voted for the bill, I take offense to a number of provisions that have nothing to do with our troops. These additions should never have been included in the Defense bill in the first place. They don't belong here. We have focused our discussion over the past few days on drilling in Alaska. And I am proud that our defense bill does not include ANWR. But in objecting to ANWR, we have forgotten other changes in the conference report, last minute additions that have no place in a defense bill. I am referring to the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The Emergency Preparedness Act virtually eliminates liability for pharmaceutical companies. Now drug companies have wholesale immunity except in the case of ``willful misconduct.'' Drug companies will no longer be held responsible for negligence or recklessness. Only if they had actual knowledge that their product would injure or kill someone would we hold them accountable. The Emergency Preparedness Act also sets up an unfunded compensation fund. Without any money appropriated to the fund, the fund is inoperable. This could allow drug companies to remove themselves from responsibility without providing the American people with the recourse they deserve. Although I support the Defense bill we passed, I do not support the Emergency Preparedness Act. This section was added at the last minute. And it only passed because all of us in the Senate wanted to provide support for our troops.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask the Senator, will she object to an amendment I suggested that the whole AMT be held harmless and that it count under pay-go in terms of the tax, the budget provisions which provide for $70 billion over the next 5 years? Those are the two conditions.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the majority, through the Senator from Texas, seeks unanimous consent to pass the House bill which extends the AMT exemption level. The House- passed bill purports to be an AMT hold harmless bill. It is not. It does not hold everyone harmless. In fact, 600,000 additional families will pay AMT next year under that House bill which the majority seeks our consent. Under the version we in the Senate passed last month, with 64 Senators in support, we ensure that not one additional taxpayer faces higher taxes in 2006 due to an onerous alternative minimum tax. The same cannot be said of this House bill for which consent is agreed to. It is true that if Congress does not act, 17 million more middle- income Americans will be subject to the AMT come January 1. We would prefer to get it right the first time and not have to make promises to close the gap for those 600,000 hard-working American taxpayers next year. I ask the Senator from Texas if she would amend her request instead to seek consent for an AMT relief amendment that I believe the majority would be supportive of, since it shows the Senate's provision, so that no AMT taxpayers are created next year. Further, while we are seeking to do these tax cuts outside of reconciliation, we would have them count against the total allowed under reconciliation. That would be part of the amendment. The text of that Senate amendment is pending at the desk, and I am asking, Will the Senator from Texas accept this amendment?

Mr. BAUCUS. As I hear their response, they will not agree to my two suggested conditions and amendments. Therefore, I must respectfully object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from Texas. I think we all agree we have to do something about the AMT. It is a big problem. I, frankly, tell the Senator I have introduced a bill to totally repeal AMT. It is a pernicious stealth tax and should not be incurred. We would like to work with the Senator to try and find a way to accomplish that.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I support the Health and Welfare Relief Act of 2005. This bill will provide funding for important initiatives that take effect in January 2006, just a few days from now. This morning the Senate passed, by the slimmest of margins, S. 1932, legislation to cut about $40 billion from mandatory spending programs over the next 5 years. I did not support S. 1932 because I believe it contains bad policy on Medicaid, on welfare, and on child support enforcement, among other things. For example, S. 1932 includes $5 billion in cuts to the child support enforcement program, which will mean that an estimated $19.6 million in child support funds will go uncollected in Montana over the next 10 years. That is money that should go to needy Montana kids. As for Medicaid, S. 1932 contains almost $2 billion in increased copays for Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as other Medicaid cuts. There are right ways to cut health care costs, through greater efficiencies that will save more money over time, and there is a wrong way to cut costs: on the backs of the Americans who can least afford to pay more for their health care. S. 1932 goes the wrong way and ignores the Senate's strong instruction to protect Medicaid beneficiaries from deep spending cuts. Last week 75 Senators supported a motion I offered in the Senate instructing budget conferees not to come back with a bill that included higher Medicaid copays and benefit cuts. Passage of S. 1932 is inconsistent with that vote. S. 1932 is bad news for the welfare program as well. Despite a Senate vote of 64 to 27 in support of removing TANF from S. 1932, the bill that the Senate passed today does just that: it reauthorizes TANF through the budget reconciliation process, with a punitive and unnecessarily austere set of provisions. The TANF Program, originally passed in 1996, has successfully reduced welfare caseloads and focused on moving parents from welfare to work. Changes to the TANF Program should build on the success of 1996 reforms, not reverse that success, as S. 1932 will ultimately do. Unfortunately, S. 1932 takes something that is not broken--and fixes it. For example, S. 1932 would raise work requirements without providing the funding needed to help States get people working. In fact, while S. 1932 includes $1 billion in additional funding for childcare, that is $7.4 billion short of what the Congressional Budget Office estimates to be the cost to States of meeting the TANF work requirements under this bill. The Health and Welfare Relief Act would extend TANF for an additional year, maintaining current policy on this important program. The Health and Welfare Relief Act would also extend transitional medical assistance, TMA, for an additional year, a program that is critical for helping families make the transition from welfare to work. The Health and Welfare Relief Act also contains a fix to the Medicare physician payment formula, which is set to cut Medicare physician payments by 4.4 percent on January 1. It prevents a cap on Medicare physical therapy from taking effect. And it extends an important provision for small rural hospitals' outpatient departments, helping them stay afloat. The bill also provides $60 million for CMS administrative funding, which should be spent to help educate seniors about the new Medicare drug benefit. And it contains $80 million for important legislation that I have sponsored related to high-risk pools, which are often the insurer of last resort. Finally, the Health and Welfare Relief Act includes important legislation providing relief to individuals and States harmed by Hurricane Katrina. Like the Lincoln amendment voted on in the Senate November 3, this bill contains provisions to: provide temporary Medicaid relief to Katrina survivors; help States struggling to meet health care costs incurred as a result of Katrina; and assist providers dealing with Katrina-related uncompensated care costs. I support the minority leader's efforts to pass these timely and critical provisions through the Health and Welfare Relief Act of 2005. While I do not support S. 1932, we should take the positive elements of that bill--as well as important provisions to aid Katrina victims--and pass them today.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the majority seeks to go to conference on the House-passed tax reconciliation bill. The House-passed bill includes tax cuts for dividends and capital gains. And the House-passed bill does not include language to prevent 17 million middle-income Americans from getting a tax increase from the alternative minimum tax. The Constitution requires the House to go first on tax measures like this. In order to build momentum for their tax cuts, the majority in the Senate chose to proceed before the House. But now the Constitution requires that the Senate take up the House-passed tax reconciliation bill and amendment. That is where we are. There are a number of Senators on this side of the aisle who would like to avail themselves of the opportunity to propose amendments to the House-passed bill. I expect that several Senators would choose to substitute middle-income tax cuts as alternatives to the dividend and capital gains tax cuts. It is important to remember that under the Budget Act Senators would have up to 20 hours to debate amendments to the House-passed bill. I, for one, would seek to offer a motion to instruct conferees on this bill to ensure that we do not raise taxes on those 17 million Americans who become subject to the AMT, unless we act. Under the Budget Act, Senators would have an additional 10 hours to debate motions to instruct conferees. We are not in the position to conduct 10 hours of debate at this late hour. The exercise, I might say, would be inappropriate. So I must object.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman for his statement. I look forward to working with him to pass legislation as quickly as possible to provide a seamless extension of these provisions. This will ensure the fewest disruptions for taxpayers and administrative problems for the IRS.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate is wrapping up legislative business shortly, but there are a few expiring tax provisions that have unfortunately not been extended yet. Chief among them is the protection from the onerous alternative minimum tax, or AMT. Both the higher exemption level and the protection for personal nonrefundable credits expire on December 31, and because of this, 17 million taxpayers face a tax increase next year if we fail to act. Further, a great number of U.S. businesses rely on important tax credits, such as the research and development tax credit and the work opportunity tax credit, both of which expire at the end of the year. This is not the first time this unfortunate situation has occurred, but it is my hope and intention that as soon as the Senate reconvenes next year, that we would take up these items and ensure that they are extended without any intervening lapse. Is that also the intention of my good friend from Iowa, Chairman Grassley?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I support the point of order raised by Senator Conrad on the budget reconciliation bill. Under the Byrd rule, any provisions in a final budget reconciliation bill that are extraneous to changing the budget can be stricken. Section 6043, the emergency room copayments for non-emergency care provisions, clearly violates the Byrd rule. Section 6043 makes far-reaching policy changes never debated in the Senate that have no place in a budge reconciliation bill. Although the provision makes major changes to Medicaid, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, EMTALA, and even State medical malpractice liability policy, it only generates net savings of $11 million over 5 years, one-tenth of a percent of the original budget target. Section 6043 allows States to impose new higher costs for Medicaid patients seeking emergency room care and allows hospitals to turn patients away if they cannot pay when the hospital says there is no emergency. Under current law, Medicaid requires hospitals to provide access to emergency care when it is medically needed. In fact, Medicaid HMOs are required to cover care in cases where the individual reasonably believes there is an emergency, even when no emergency exists. And Federal law requires hospitals to screen and stabilize patients regardless of their ability to pay. Section 6043 turns current law on its head. It will deter emergency room use by Medicaid beneficiaries and make it harder to enforce the Federal guarantee of access to emergency care for all. The provision also includes language that makes it harder for patients to sue hospitals and doctors for poor treatment decisions about whether they need emergency care. This language would tip the burden of proof from a ``preponderance of the evidence'' to a ``clear and convincing'' evidence standard. The ``preponderance'' standard is the usual standard in State medical malpractice claims. It is a standard that strikes the balance between the patient and the provider. The ``clear and convincing'' standard tips the burden of proof toward the patient and makes it more difficult for a patient to prove his or her claim. Similarly, the provision also changes the standard of liability from the usual State standard of ``negligence'' to a heightened standard of ``gross negligence.'' It is more difficult for a patient to prove ``gross negligence'' than ``negligence.'' Thus, the language changes the standard of liability to impose greater burdens on the injured patient and less accountability for the providers. This actually makes an end run around State medical malpractice liability law, lowering the standard of liability. Neither State medical malpractice law nor EMTALA standards were the subject of this bill. Neither was discussed in the Senate, even though both are of great concern to many in the Senate. This provision was never discussed or considered at any point in the Senate debate, in committee or on the floor. It was omitted from the Senate version. Given this section's extremely small pricetag and its oversize policy effect, this provision is ripe for exclusion under the Byrd rule. For these reasons, I support Senator Conrad's point of order to strike section 6043.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask the leader, the ranking member, that I be recognized after that.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I echo a lot of the same concerns just voiced by the Senator from Illinois. We have all been here a few years, and we see some things that are questionable. But the actions taken by the majority in this session of this Congress are beyond questionable. In many cases, I think they are outrageous, and I am very glad the Senator from Illinois brought the Senate's attention to them. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the pending legislation, and that is the budget reconciliation bill that is before us. I oppose this budget reconciliation bill, and I do so for a couple of very basic reasons. First of all, this bill would cause many of America's poorest citizens to go without needed medical treatment. Just think of that: some of the poorest citizens in our country to go without needed medical treatment. It would make it harder for many of America's neediest citizens to move off of welfare and on to work. It would make it harder, not easier, to get off of welfare and on to work. It would also deprive many single parents help in getting child support from their deadbeat spouses. It makes it harder to get child support from deadbeat spouses. That is what this bill does, and I will explain later why that is the case. And this bill would undercut American lumber workers in their dispute with Canadian lumber. There is a better way. The better way is something much more similar to what the Senate passed here, although I opposed it because I thought it was so draconian, and I opposed it because I felt it would lay the seeds for just what is happening here today, and that is a conference report that is much, much worse than the Senate-passed bill. I think the Senate should vote down this bill. We do not have to pass it this year. This is not an appropriations bill. This is not a tax bill. It does not have to be passed this year. It should be voted down so we can get to work next year and cut the budget in a more fair and more moderate way, rather than this draconian way contained in this bill. There is a right way and a wrong way, for example, to control health care spending. We all know health care costs are high, but let's just reflect a little bit and try to figure out what is the right way to cut health care costs to address that situation and do that rather than the wrong way. Well, I might say, we in this body included some of the right way in the Senate-passed reconciliation bill. What is that? We included provisions to put us on the road to paying for performance and quality in health care. That is the right way to control health care costs; that is, to reimburse providers--doctors and hospitals--a little bit more when they show their outcomes are a little better, they are doing a better job. That means health care costs will come down because the quality will increase and we will not be providing, in many cases, health care that is irrespective of quality. We have to start addressing quality in health care. The Senate-passed bill started to address that. The conference report hardly even touches that. I will explain that a little bit later, too. What does this bill do? Instead, this bill merely cuts holes in the safety net. It cuts holes in the safety net. It does not shore it up and try to figure out ways to address the problems; it cuts holes and makes things worse. How? Well, it raises Medicaid copayments for those least able to pay. It raises costs for people on Medicaid. It also allows States to cut Medicaid benefits below existing minimum benefits. That is the wrong way to control health care costs. The better way is to address paid performance and quality. The wrong way is to just willy-nilly cutting expenditures for the poorest of our Americans; that is, for the Medicaid Program. We have also seen how the wrong way works, not in theory but in practice. Increasing costs for poor people forces them not to seek health care when they need it. It has that effect. When the poor people in our country have to pay that much more for health care, what do they do? They don't get the health care. What happens? They live a little bit more with the illness they have. What is the consequence of that? They come back to the emergency room later when their condition gets worse. The system ends up spending more on health care rather than less. The burden of uncompensated care grows. You and I and all the rest of us who pay for health care end up paying still more for health care because of the increased uncompensated care because the poorer people will not be seeking the health care they need but put it off and, therefore, go to emergency rooms, and we end up paying more. That is the way the wrong way works. That is the way provided for in this bill. Furthermore, this bill is not a moderate package. Far from it. The Senate-passed bill was more moderate. Instead, the bill before us hews largely to the House-passed bill which is not moderate. It is extreme. It is draconian. The bill before us, which hews mostly to the House side, would impose nearly $2 billion in increased cost sharing on Medicaid beneficiaries or about 80 percent of the cost-sharing increases in the House bill. What else? The bill would also allow State Medicaid Programs to offer Medicaid beneficiaries an ``actuarially equivalent'' benefit package. What does that mean? I will tell you what it means. It means reduced benefits. It is a fancy euphemism for reduced benefits for Medicaid beneficiaries. States will also be able to impose new premiums for coverage and to drop individuals from Medicaid if they can't pay. Last week I offered a motion to instruct participants of this conference not to harm Medicaid beneficiaries by passing a budget reconciliation bill that resembles the House-passed bill. The Senate overwhelmingly supported that motion. The vote was 75 to 16. I was heartened. I felt good about that action. The Senate was speaking clearly and strongly not to let the conferees impose draconian cuts. Senators who supported that motion should stick to their guns. They should remain consistent in their support of Medicaid. They should vote against this reconciliation conference report in view of what the Congress has done juxtaposed to that 75-to-16 vote. I am disappointed with many of the provisions included in this budget reconciliation bill. I am also disappointed with provisions that were not included in this bill. The conference report does not include meaningful pay-for-performance and quality provisions. We live in a country that spends twice as much as any other country on health care per capita. Yet our country ranks 37th in the world on quality. Think of that. We spend twice as much per capita as any other country in the world and yet we rank 37th in the world on quality. Our country leaves almost 16 percent of our population with no health care coverage at all. We are not getting good value for our health care dollar. The value that each health care dollar buys varies widely from patient to patient. Consider recent research from Dartmouth that looked at large hospitals in California. That research found that per-person Medicare spending on health care in the last 2 years of life ranged from $20,000 to almost $90,000. The more expensive patients were not sicker. That is the point. They did not receive higher quality care. That is also the point. But they cost the Medicare Program over four times more. I was proud to work with the chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. Grassley, to write legislation bringing quality improvement and accountability to Medicare. We worked hard on that. We got a bill passed out of committee. Under our Medicare Value Purchasing Act, Medicare providers would be held accountable for the care they provide. And the best providers would be rewarded accordingly. Doesn't that make sense, that we reward quality? Shouldn't we do that in the health care system? We don't today in America. Most every other industry is rewarded for quality, but our health care service by and large is not. The Senate included our pay-for-performance legislation in the budget reconciliation bill that passed this Chamber last month. I did not support the larger bill, but I was pleased that our Medicare quality legislation was included in the package. But our quality bill has mostly been stripped in the conference report. The conference report expands existing quality reporting requirements for hospitals. It sets up minimal reporting requirements for some home health. The report includes a study on pay for performance in hospitals and some minimal payment changes to discourage a couple of hospital- acquired infections. These provisions are only for hospitals and are mostly at the discretion of the Secretary. Moreover, these provisions are delayed until years after the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission recommended that Medicare providers would be ready to be paid for quality. I am disappointed to see Congress setting the bar so low because we have so little time in which to address the increasing costs of health care and all the problems that creates. I oppose this conference report because it doesn't begin to address what could and should be done. I remain fully committed to seeing Medicare pay-for-performance become law. I also supported a motion to instruct conferees related to TANF, the Nation's welfare program. Offered by Senator Carper, this motion instructed conferees not to reauthorize TANF through the budget reconciliation process. That was the motion offered by the Senator from Delaware. That passed by a large vote. What happened? First, let's remember that Congress enacted the TANF Program back in 1996. It was enacted to help welfare recipients get work skills and to help low-income families become economically self- sufficient. I supported it in 1996. Many Democrats did not, but I thought it was a good way to get people off of welfare and a fair way to get people back to work. What has happened? Welfare reform has mostly succeeded. That 1996 bill was a good bill. States have adopted creative policies to support low-income families making the transition from welfare to work, and millions have moved to self-sufficiency. It is not great, but it is a lot better than what it was prior to 1996. The TANF law expired in 2002. Senator Grassley, chairman of the committee, and I worked diligently on the TANF reauthorization bill this year. It was a compromise that enjoyed near unanimous support in the committee. We could not get that bill up in the full Senate. There were a few willful Senators who opposed it, even though it had the near unanimous support of the Finance Committee. It was a moderate reauthorization of TANF. Let's also remember policy changes to TANF--and they are quite pervasive and significant--do not belong in the fast-track budget reconciliation process. It does not belong there. The Presiding Officer knows that, as does everybody in this body. That process was designed to reduce the deficit, not to reauthorize important safety net programs such as TANF or other major policy issues. That is particularly true given the nature of the TANF provisions in this bill. This conference report contains strict new work requirements in TANF. Not only is it a reauthorization, it has provisions that make the program not work, make it worse. It is not moderate. It makes it worse. It is in this conference report. This report undermines the State flexibility necessary to meet the standards of their most vulnerable citizens. This conference report provides only $1 billion in childcare funds, even though we need $12.4 billion in childcare funding to keep up with inflation. How miserly is that? Only $1 billion in childcare, when we really need 12 billion. Let's compromise, maybe 6, $7 billion; that is a compromise. That is midway between what this bill provides and what inflation calls for. But no, there is only $1 billion in this bill. The report also foists a set of unfunded mandates on States, mandates that would harm low-income families. Let's not forget these families are playing by the rules right now. They are trying to do what is right. They are trying to work their way off of welfare and trying to get into sustainable employment. But this conference report eliminates the State flexibility that has made the TANF Program a resounding success. We should reauthorize TANF. We should improve the program to focus on reducing poverty as well as welfare caseloads. And we should ensure that more people can leave welfare for sustainable work. This conference report does just the opposite. More families will lose assistance. And our State partners will lose the flexibility that they need to support families in their time of need. Speaking of families, what about the child support enforcement provisions in this bill? This conference report includes a $5 billion cut in Federal funding for child support enforcement efforts. That's right, a $5 billion cut. States use these funds to track down absent parents, to establish legally enforceable child support orders, and to collect and distribute child support owed to families. These cuts will take billions of dollars out of the pockets of mothers and children who are owed child support. This cut is simply indefensible. This bill also fails to adequately address the health needs of Katrina victims. It has been nearly 4 months since Katrina hit, resulting in over a thousand deaths, the displacement of over a million people, and a reconstruction bill that may exceed a couple hundred billion dollars. The Katrina disaster was unprecedented. It required an unprecedented response by Congress. That's why I worked with Chairman Grassley in the days following the hurricane to write S. 1716, the Emergency Health Care Relief Act. That bill would have provided 5 months of temporary Medicaid coverage for Katrina evacuees in poverty. That bill would have shored up State Medicaid programs overwhelmed by Katrina evacuees. That bill would have reimbursed providers for uncompensated care provided to Katrina evacuees. And that bill would have helped States with the unprecedented burden on Gulf State welfare programs. But the Senate did not pass that bill. The Senate could not even take it up. We tried to take it up many times. We stood on the floor many times and asked unanimous consent to bring up the bill, but we were opposed by a band of two or three or four Senators, but we cannot understand why. I think, basically, they are doing it at the behest of the White House, the President. The President didn't want to help people down there with their health care needs, and the congressional leadership did his bidding. I appreciate Chairman Grassley's efforts to help Katrina victims. He fought to pass S. 1716 legislation against the wishes of the White House and his congressional leadership. I want him to know that I appreciate his efforts. When the Senate eventually passed this budget reconciliation measure, it included some Katrina relief. It was an insufficient amount. And I could not support it. It was so paltry, it was an insult. As for this conference report before us today, it is still insufficient. Moreover, its Katrina funding comes in the form of a block grant. So States affected by Katrina, as well as States treating Katrina evacuees, are given $2 billion for their Katrina health-care needs, whether that is a sufficient amount or not. Both the House and Senate bills had provided for 100 percent federal financing over the short term for all States with Katrina-related Medicaid costs. Finally, I want to briefly mention an important trade issue. This bill repeals the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also known as the Byrd amendment. This repeal could not come at a worse time for the American lumber industry. The industry has recently suffered a series of setbacks in its long-running dispute with Canada on imports of Canadian softwood lumber. The Byrd amendment is one of the few tools the industry still has to encourage Canada to settle the lumber dispute once and for all. Repealing the Byrd amendment now pulls the rug right out from under the industry. I won't do that. And I urge my colleagues who are friends of the lumber industry to join me in supporting the industry by voting against this bill. We don't have to pass this bill this year, Mr. President. There is no need. None. So let's not pass it and do what is right in a subsequent reconciliation bill. Mr. President, there is a great deal to be disappointed about in this spending reconciliation legislation. It does not meet the health and welfare needs of Katrina victims. It makes health care for the poorest among us more expensive and lets well-heeled people off the hook. It puts forth an unreasonably austere welfare program in a vehicle where it doesn't belong. It fails to advance the Medicare quality agenda that many of us have worked so hard to make reality. And it undermines the U.S. lumber industry at the worst possible moment. In short, Mr. President, the Senate should reject this bill. The Senate can do better. I urge my colleagues to do better by the American people by voting ``no.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a lengthy list of all of the groups that oppose this bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. This is a lengthy list. I don't have time to read them all. The groups that start with A, such as AARP, for example, are at the head of the list. This is seven pages. Let me guess how many groups per page. It is about 30 groups per page at least, in groups of seven. So 30 times 7 is a couple hundred groups that are opposed to this bill-- for good reason. This is not something they willy-nilly just came up with; they have looked at this bill. They have concluded, as I have, that we should not pass this bill. We don't have to pass it now. We can do it next year. We should go home for Christmas. This is some Christmas present. This bill cuts Medicaid to people, pulls the rug out from under the lumber industry, and it hurts low- income people trying to get to work and off of welfare. Some Christmas present. We should go home for Christmas and not pass this legislation and then come back next year and do the right thing. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. About 25 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about the PATRIOT Act. I voted against cloture for the PATRIOT Act because I do not feel that this bill is good for our country. The conference report invades our most treasured civil liberties--the right to be left alone without the Government invading our personal space. I know the people of Montana value this freedom. So does the rest of the country. We can be safe from terrorism and at the same time be free from Government restrictions on our basic civil liberties. The conference report does not strike this essential balance. Instead, it infringes on the rights we hold most dear. The Senate bill I supported in July was a joint effort, between Republicans and Democrats, which took important steps to protect the freedoms of innocent Americans. At the same time, the Senate bill made sure that the Government had the power it needed to investigate potential terrorists and terrorist activities. I am deeply disappointed in the conference report which retreats too far from the bill I supported in the Senate. The conference report fails to make some vitally important reforms to the PATRIOT Act that we, in Senate, agreed to in July. My colleagues have spoken at length about the broad, intrusive powers of section 215. I share these concerns on the expansive powers given to the Government in the conference report. I am also seriously disturbed by the recent news of the Government's ability to spy on innocent U.S. citizens and listen to our private conversations. This conference report is flawed. And it needs work. Let me make myself clear. I am not opposed to reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. We need to work together to make the necessary improvements on this very important piece of legislation. We must put aside our party lines and come to an agreement that gives our law enforcement officers the ability to do their jobs. But we must also preserve our freedoms in the process. We can protect the country from terrorism while at the same time protecting all innocent Americans from unnecessary Government intrusion. The safety of our country depends on it.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express a little hometown pride. Last Saturday, I had the great opportunity to watch history in the making in Savannah, TN, as the Carroll College Fighting Saints from Helena, MT, marched to victory over the St. Francis Cougars from Fort Wayne, ID. Carroll College is a private, Catholic college in my hometown of Helena, MT. Carroll is home to 1,500 students and enjoys a host of outstanding accomplishments in its nationally award-winning academic and pre-professional programs. Carroll is especially known for its flagship pre-medical, engineering and nursing programs. The Carroll Talking Saints Forensics Team is ranked in the top five in the Nation and has reigned as Northwest Regional Champions for the past 15 years. It is a small school, with a huge record of accomplishment. The Carroll College Fighting Saints are the only team on any level of college football in the modern era to win four national titles in a row. They only gave up 9 points per game this season, adding to their outstanding national accomplishments. Led by Tyler Emmer, who claimed the NAIA player of the year for the second time, the Saints offensive attack has piled up impressive numbers this season. The Saints can stretch the field with long passes or they can use their short passing game to keep the chains moving, as they did last Saturday. It was wonderful to be there and watch, as the PA kept saying, ``Move those chains, move those chains,'' as Carroll kept scoring on the first down. Emmert has thrown for 3,039 yards and 33 touchdowns this season. He owns a career record of 50-to-3 wins as a starter for the Saints. Emmert and his teammate Jeff Shirley were named Frontier Conference Players of the Year. A class act, Tyler is the first to credit his teammates for his success. To win Saturday, putting the Carroll College Fighting Saints in the record book, is more than just about football. It is about hard work, dedication, competitiveness, leadership, friendship, and family. In his 7-year career at Carroll, head coach Mike Van Diest led his team to four national championships. Mike again was named Frontier Conference Coach of the Year. He is a class act. Working tirelessly to inspire these young athletes, Mike has created more than a championship football team. He has taught them the value of a quality education, the strength of teamwork, and the importance of giving back to the community and those in need. Coach Van Diest defines what it is to be a true Montanan. I commend him for setting such high standards for all of us. Also, congratulations go to Carroll College athletic director Bruce Parker and his staff. I recognize Carroll College President Tom Trebon for his leadership and commitment to Carroll College. Finally, I want to commend my good friend from Indiana, Senator Evan Bayh. The Senator and I had a little wager on the game. We went double or nothing on a bet from last year--Montana-brewed beer against Indiana-grown popcorn. I look forward to the popcorn. We appreciate the Senator being such a good sport. Carroll College is more than a 4-year experience; it is for life. As the 17 senior players complete their football careers, they begin life's journey more equipped to meet the challenges of their new lives. I am confident the Saints will continue to march on to many more victories. They are a wonderful bunch of guys and gals at Carroll College, a great team, a great coach. I was there Saturday to watch the game. I was so pleased to be part of the Carroll family, and I cannot commend all of them enough for what they do in the best sense of the term, all the values that mean so much to basic America. I thank Carroll College for what you do. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the lives of two people very close to me, Montana, and the Senate. Stan and Eunice Kimmitt were both remarkable individuals and touched many lives over the years. In an effort to preserve their memory, I think it is fitting that I share the kind remarks made at their funerals with the full Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the leader yield for a question on the last subject of scheduling votes?

Mr. BAUCUS. I don't see any reason why we can't finish all our voting tomorrow. We all know what the issues are. We all know what the votes are. I don't see any reason to delay. We ought to vote. There are so many families here, so many spouses, so many children, families want to get together. This is, after all, Christmas. I don't know why in the world we don't schedule all of our votes by tomorrow so at the very least by tomorrow we can start to head home with our loved ones. Can't the leader work that out?