Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The Greek philosopher Plato warned, ``where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more, and the unjust man will pay less on the same amount of income.'' This phrase is telling. The way people fill out their tax returns is an important window into their private ethical conduct. And it is a good barometer of their integrity, character, and suitability for office. Paying one's fair share of the tax burden is one of an American's most important patriotic duties. Americans from all walks of life pay their taxes out of obligation and fidelity to their country. Isn't it fair to know whether individuals who have been nominated for lifetime positions to the highest court in the land have faithfully paid their taxes? The legislation that I introduce today, The Supreme Court Tax Accountability Act of 2005, would require that nominees to the Supreme Court--including Judge Samuel Alito--provide 3 years of tax returns for an independent review to ensure compliance with the law. Specifically, the legislation would require the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to review a Supreme Court nominee's returns and report on the nominee's tax compliance to the Judiciary and Finance Committees. The bill does not extend the power to inspect tax returns to any persons who do not currently have such authority. And the bill ensures that private taxpayer information is not shared unscrupulously. Certainly, these returns would not be released to the public. This approach has precedent. Thirty years ago, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas retired from the bench. Within days, President Ford nominated John Paul Stevens for the vacancy. The President hoped that the nomination of a moderate who had been given the American Bar Association's highest rating would help restore confidence in government in the wake of the Watergate scandals. As the confirmation hearings drew near, six members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote Chairman Eastland requesting ``the most thorough practicable investigation of the nominee.'' The Senators' letter requested full disclosure of Stevens' personal health and finances, including a complete and thorough review of his Federal and state tax returns. Stevens promptly complied. When the full Senate took up the nomination, Chairman Eastland urged the confirmation of Stevens saying, ``his personal integrity, as reflected in his financial statements and income tax returns, is of the highest order.'' The Senate confirmed Stevens by a vote of 98 to 0 and he took the oath of office 2 days later at the age of 55. Washington is now under a similar ethical cloud. But the White House has resisted my efforts to have the Joint Committee on Taxation review the tax returns of Chief Justice John Roberts, Ms. Harriet Miers, and Judge Samuel Alito. The administration's decision to put its Supreme Court nominees' tax returns off limits is consistent with its penchant for secrecy. Its refusal to heed this most basic document request, however, is a barrier to the rigorous due diligence process required for prospective Government officials that come before the Senate Committee on Finance. All nominees, from Cabinet secretaries to Tax Court judges, have their tax returns scrutinized. On more than one occasion, the Finance Committee has admonished the administration for failing to do a better job of determining a candidate's compliance with the tax laws. In some cases, tax issues have contributed to the withdrawal of nominees who were before the Senate. Despite these warnings and withdrawals, the administration still doesn't do a particularly good job of catching nominees' tax problems. Therefore, it is vital to the constitutional process of advice and consent for the Senate to have the information necessary to ensure fitness to serve. The Senate must not rely on the executive branch to provide oversight. Finally, I am introducing this bill today to apply to all nominees-- those nominated by Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. Careful oversight of nominees to the highest Court in the land should not be a partisan issue. It was Ronald Reagan who famously said, ``trust, but verify.'' This bill aims to embody President Reagan's maxim. Trust in government is an issue that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents value. The noted Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis said that ``secrecy necessarily breeds suspicion.'' The American people have a right to know that public officials--particularly those appointed for life--have faithfully and fully paid their taxes. Blocking Congressional access to Supreme Court nominees' returns creates questions that can breed public distrust in government. Providing access to those returns can help to provide the transparency and trust Americans deserve in the Supreme Court nomination process. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this bill enacted.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today we begin debate on the free trade agreement between the United States and Bahrain. This is an agreement that strengthens our ties with a stalwart ally in a troubled part of the world. It is an agreement with a leading reformer in the Middle East, and with the most open economy in the Arab world. And it is an agreement worthy of our support. On the first day of enactment of the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, 100 percent of trade in manufactured goods will be duty free, opening up markets for U.S. exports of motor vehicles and parts, medical equipment, refrigeration equipment, et cetera. Agricultural exports are also expected to rise, and I hope Montana beef is among them. The services chapter is the most robust of any agreement the United States has negotiated. Bahrain has promised American companies doing business in the kingdom a regime free of barriers, modern in its regulation, and respectful of intellectual property rights. For Bahrain, this agreement means greater integration into the world economy, a better environment for its workers, and a pioneering role in the Arab world. For the Middle East as a region, I hope this agreement is a firmly planted seed that will grow prosperity, openness, and stability. A strong agreement such as this one does not automatically happen. It takes hard work. It takes perseverance, followthrough. It takes vision. Fortunately, the United States and Bahraini officials have these qualities in spades. I applaud their hard work. Ambassador Belooshi-- who, I might add, is observing these proceedings close by, very close, I might add--of the Kingdom of Bahrain typifies the courageous action and progressive thinking the Bahrainis have shown through the FTA process, and we should applaud him for it. He has done a super job. I also applaud Ambassador Rob Portman and his predecessor, Bob Zoellick. Ambassador Zoellick negotiated a strong agreement, and Ambassador Portman saw it through. Ambassador Portman listened to Senators' interests in monitoring Bahrain's end to its boycott of Israel, and together we worked out a solution. He has been equally energetic and flexible in working with my colleagues in the House Ways and Means Committee to alleviate their concerns, especially on labor. I also applaud the very capable and energetic staff of the USTR. They are dedicated public servants, putting in long hours and endless effort into their work. They do a super job. This is the first FTA to come before us since the very contentious Central American Free Trade agreement. The overwhelming support I expect the Bahrain agreement to secure is a testament to what can be achieved when the administration and the Congress work together to address concerns. The Bahrain FTA shows that when the administration keeps an open dialogue with Congress, we can find common ground and achieve our common goals. I hope that we can continue to build upon the success of this FTA in helping to heal the wounds of previous battles. I think we have before us a model for open dialogue, and for congressional support for trade liberalization. I hope that we can take this model and apply it to much larger trading partners and even bolder agreements. Agreements that will open bigger markets, realize greater opportunities, and make our industries even more competitive. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the U.S.-Bahrain free trade agreement. I urge my colleagues to pledge their support as well.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The Greek philosopher Plato warned, ``where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more, and the unjust man will pay less on the same amount of income.'' This phrase is telling. The way people fill out their tax returns is an important window into their private ethical conduct. And it is a good barometer of their integrity, character, and suitability for office. Paying one's fair share of the tax burden is one of an American's most important patriotic duties. Americans from all walks of life pay their taxes out of obligation and fidelity to their country. Isn't it fair to know whether individuals who have been nominated for lifetime positions to the highest court in the land have faithfully paid their taxes? The legislation that I introduce today, The Supreme Court Tax Accountability Act of 2005, would require that nominees to the Supreme Court--including Judge Samuel Alito--provide 3 years of tax returns for an independent review to ensure compliance with the law. Specifically, the legislation would require the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to review a Supreme Court nominee's returns and report on the nominee's tax compliance to the Judiciary and Finance Committees. The bill does not extend the power to inspect tax returns to any persons who do not currently have such authority. And the bill ensures that private taxpayer information is not shared unscrupulously. Certainly, these returns would not be released to the public. This approach has precedent. Thirty years ago, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas retired from the bench. Within days, President Ford nominated John Paul Stevens for the vacancy. The President hoped that the nomination of a moderate who had been given the American Bar Association's highest rating would help restore confidence in government in the wake of the Watergate scandals. As the confirmation hearings drew near, six members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote Chairman Eastland requesting ``the most thorough practicable investigation of the nominee.'' The Senators' letter requested full disclosure of Stevens' personal health and finances, including a complete and thorough review of his Federal and state tax returns. Stevens promptly complied. When the full Senate took up the nomination, Chairman Eastland urged the confirmation of Stevens saying, ``his personal integrity, as reflected in his financial statements and income tax returns, is of the highest order.'' The Senate confirmed Stevens by a vote of 98 to 0 and he took the oath of office 2 days later at the age of 55. Washington is now under a similar ethical cloud. But the White House has resisted my efforts to have the Joint Committee on Taxation review the tax returns of Chief Justice John Roberts, Ms. Harriet Miers, and Judge Samuel Alito. The administration's decision to put its Supreme Court nominees' tax returns off limits is consistent with its penchant for secrecy. Its refusal to heed this most basic document request, however, is a barrier to the rigorous due diligence process required for prospective Government officials that come before the Senate Committee on Finance. All nominees, from Cabinet secretaries to Tax Court judges, have their tax returns scrutinized. On more than one occasion, the Finance Committee has admonished the administration for failing to do a better job of determining a candidate's compliance with the tax laws. In some cases, tax issues have contributed to the withdrawal of nominees who were before the Senate. Despite these warnings and withdrawals, the administration still doesn't do a particularly good job of catching nominees' tax problems. Therefore, it is vital to the constitutional process of advice and consent for the Senate to have the information necessary to ensure fitness to serve. The Senate must not rely on the executive branch to provide oversight. Finally, I am introducing this bill today to apply to all nominees-- those nominated by Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. Careful oversight of nominees to the highest Court in the land should not be a partisan issue. It was Ronald Reagan who famously said, ``trust, but verify.'' This bill aims to embody President Reagan's maxim. Trust in government is an issue that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents value. The noted Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis said that ``secrecy necessarily breeds suspicion.'' The American people have a right to know that public officials--particularly those appointed for life--have faithfully and fully paid their taxes. Blocking Congressional access to Supreme Court nominees' returns creates questions that can breed public distrust in government. Providing access to those returns can help to provide the transparency and trust Americans deserve in the Supreme Court nomination process. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this bill enacted.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will be sending a motion to instruct to the desk. I will be doing that at a later time. In the meantime, I rise to speak on that motion. The motion instructs the Senate conferees on the spending reconciliation bill not to bring back a conference report that hurts Medicaid beneficiaries. This is the item about which the Senator from New Mexico just spoke. Last month, the House passed such a bill, one that would hurt Medicaid beneficiaries. The House passed a bill that would cut health care for millions of seniors and lower income Americans who depend on Medicaid. I believe the Senate should reject these harmful cuts. In early November, the Senate voted by a thin margin to cut Medicaid, our Nation's safety net health program for low-income Americans. Many of us at that time objected to those cuts. That day, the Senate bill planted a seed of opportunity to make even more harmful cuts, hurting millions of low-income children, seniors, pregnant women, and individuals with disabilities. Just 2 weeks ago, the Senate reconciliation bill bore bitter fruit. Why? Because the Medicaid cuts in the House bill turned out to be substantial and, in fact, will hurt millions of the poorest and neediest among us. According to the Congressional Budget Office, most of the Medicaid savings in the House bill come from targeting our poorest citizens. CBO says three-quarters of the House bill's Medicaid savings come from provisions that increase costs, cut benefits, or impair access to services for low-income individuals. These cuts will affect millions of people. The CBO estimates that about 17 million Medicaid enrollees will pay more under the House bill, and half of those paying more will be children. Who will these cuts affect? Medicaid now serves more than 50 million low-income Americans. A quarter are children. A quarter are seniors and disabled. The rest are pregnant women, low-income parents, and individuals with serious medical needs. Many believe that all low-income Americans are eligible for Medicaid. That is not the case. Often only the very poor qualify. On average, a nonworking parent making about $150 per week for a family of three makes too much for Medicaid. Again, a nonworking parent of a family of three making about $150 a week makes too much for Medicaid. That is less than one-half the Federal poverty level. Eligibility levels for working parents are also low. On average, a working parent with a family of three earning more than $5.50 an hour also makes too much to qualify for Medicaid. So we are talking about the very poor. Under the House bill, these needy individuals will pay more for less. CBO estimates that about 80 percent of the savings from increasing cost sharing would come from decreased use of health care services. Some may say that increasing cost sharing will curb waste, abuse. I am not saying we cannot or should not look at reducing unnecessary treatments under Medicaid. Far from it. But increasing cost sharing is not the right way to do it. Increasing costs deters patients from seeking health care services, both good and bad services. If we really want to control overuse of services, we should be investing in care management strategies for expensive chronic diseases such as diabetes. These strategies have proven to lower cost while increasing the quality of care. Increasing enrollee cost sharing can also have unintended systemwide effects. Many States have already said they will deduct the new copayment fees from provider rates regardless of whether providers collect the fees. The result puts the new burden on doctors and clinics and hospitals serving our health safety net. Many of these providers will be forced to make up uncompensated care costs by increasing private market rates, which will drive up health care costs for all of us, leading to more uninsured and an even greater need for Medicaid. Even more troubling, the House bill's premium increases will result in tens of thousands of individuals losing Medicaid coverage. According to CBO, about a quarter of the savings from the premium increases are for individuals losing coverage. We don't need to rely on CBO to know that this will actually happen. Why? Because in the State of Oregon, this was tried, and the results were quite clear and disturbing. That State began to enforce nominal monthly premiums for higher income Medicaid beneficiaries. What happened? Oregon saw its enrollment drop by nearly one-half in 10 months. Nearly 50,000 individuals lost coverage. This increased cost sharing amounts to a tax on poor families now in Medicaid. For a family of three with income at 135 percent of poverty, annual cost sharing would be as high as $1,086 per year or, stated another way, about 60 percent of their annual Federal tax liability. Let me say that again. For a family of three, with income at 135 percent of poverty, annual cost-sharing could be as high as over $1,000, which amounts to less than 60 percent of their annual Federal tax liability. In effect, it is a tax--a big tax, about 60 percent of their Federal tax. Add them together and it is about 160 percent of tax they are paying. Many of these poor individuals would also be forced to pay more to get less. How? Because the House allows States to cut Medicaid benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 5 million enrollees would see their benefits cut over the next 10 years. Half of those affected would be children. Higher income children would no longer have guaranteed access to medically necessary care under Medicaid. It is also unclear whether individuals with disabilities and chronic conditions would be protected. This could undermine access to more expensive treatments and services for those individuals who turn to Medicaid because the private market will not cover them. Shifting costs and cutting benefits for our poorest and least able to pay is not the smart way to preserve our Nation's safety net for future generations. In the Finance Committee, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose to support the Senate bill because it didn't include changes that would hurt Medicaid beneficiaries. My friend and colleague, Finance Chairman Grassley, praised the bill, saying it ``protects Medicaid benefits for the most vulnerable in our society.'' The Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, said that ``the reconciliation package we are considering today is not only fiscally responsible, but also morally defensible. This is a bill that protects the less fortunate among us. It takes pains to preserve the vital safety net programs that millions of Americans rely on.'' And the junior Senator from Pennsylvania said during the committee markup: Let us set the record straight. We are not cutting health care services to the beneficiary. So today I will offer this motion to set the record straight on Medicaid cuts. This motion instructs Senate conferees on the reconciliation bill to reject changes to Medicaid that would hurt Medicaid beneficiaries or undermine Medicaid's guarantee. Given the threat of the cuts passed in the House, the Senate must take a stand in support of the neediest among us. Let us ensure that we keep the record straight on Medicaid. Let us ensure that we do no harm to the vulnerable individuals whom Medicare serves. Let us pass this motion. Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will make the motion. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the winners of the United States Professor of the Year Award. Since 1981, this prestigious honor has been awarded to professors who show an exceptional dedication to teaching. This year, professors from 40 States, the District of Columbia, and Guam are being honored with this award. Their disciplines are varied; they come from both private and public institutions. But they have one thing in common, and that is dedication to teaching. These undergraduate professors do more than teach information. They impact their classes by inspiring students to excel. They think up new and inventive ways for their students to learn. They create programs that allow students to learn through working and teaching experience. Sometimes these professors go as far as establishing new departments in their institutions, broadening academic choices for undergraduates. College professors contribute so much to their institutions and surrounding communities, and often these vast contributions go unnoticed by society. I am proud that we are taking time today to honor these inspiring professors: 2005 U.S. Professors of the Year, National and State Winners Outstanding Baccalaureate Colleges Professor, W.A. Hayden Schilling, Robert Critchfield Professor of English History, The College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio. Outstanding Community Colleges Professor, Katherine R. Rowell, Professor of Sociology, Sinclair Community College, Dayton, Ohio. Outstanding Doctoral and Research Universities Professor, Buzz Alexander, Professor of English Language and Literature, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Outstanding Master's Universities and Colleges Professor, Carlos G. Gutierrez, Professor of Chemistry, California State University, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. State winners Alabama: Guy A. Caldwell, Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama. Arkansas: Scott Roulier, Associate Professor of Political Science, Lyon College. California: Philip R. Kesten, Associate Professor of Physics, Santa Clara University. Colorado: Daniel J. Pack, Professor of Electrical Engineering, United States Air Force Academy. Connecticut: Lawrence F. Roberge, Associate Professor & Chair, Department of Science, Goodwin College. District of Columbia: Matthew O'Gara, Associate Professorial, Lecturer, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University. Florida: Ana M. Cruz, Professor of Accounting, Miami Dade College, Wolfson Campus. Georgia: Julie K. Bartley, Associate Professor of Geosciences, University of West Georgia. Guam: Kyle D. Smith, Professor of Psychology, University of Guam. Idaho: Rhett Diessner, Professor of Education, Lewis-Clark State College. Illinois: M. Vali Siadat, Professor & Chair, Department of Mathematics, Richard J. Daley College. Indiana: John B. Iverson, Professor of Biology, Earlham College. Iowa: James L. Brimeyer, Instructor of Composition & Literature, Northeast Iowa Community College. Kansas: Elsie R. Shore, Professor of Psychology, Wichita State University. Kentucky: Peggy Shadduck Palombi, Associate Professor of Biology, Transylvania University. Louisiana: Roger White, Associate Professor of Political Science, Loyola University New Orleans. Maryland: James M. Wallace, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park. Massachusetts: Walter H. Johnson, Professor & Chair, Department of Physics, Suffolk University. Michigan: Gary B. Gagnon, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Central Michigan University. Minnesota: Mark Wallert, Professor of Biology, Minnesota State University Moorhead. Missouri: Rebecca Kuntz Willits, Assistant Professor, Biomedical Engineering, Saint Louis University. Montana: Jakki J. Mohr, Professor of Marketing, University of Montana. Nebraska: Daniel G. Deffenbaugh, Associate Professor of Religion, Hastings College. Nevada: Paul F. Starrs, Professor of Geography, University of Nevada, Reno. New Hampshire: Debra S. Picchi, Professor of Anthropology, Franklin Pierce College. New Jersey: Phyllis Owens, Associate Professor of Computer Graphics, Camden County College. New Mexico: Elise Pookie Sautter, Professor of Marketing, New Mexico State University. New York: Jo Beth Mertens, Assistant Professor of Economics, Hobart and William Smith Colleges. North Carolina: Cindy C. Combs, Professor of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte. North Dakota: Jim Coykendall, Associate Professor of Mathematics, North Dakota State University. Ohio: Nathan W. Klingbeil, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Wright State University. Oregon: Jerry D. Gray, Professor of Economics, Willamette University. Pennsylvania: Jerome Zurek, Professor & Chair, Department of English & Communication, Cabrini College. South Carolina: Norman M. Scarborough, Associate Professor of Information Science, Presbyterian College. Tennessee: Jette Halladay, Professor of Speech and Theatre, Middle Tennessee State University. Texas: Susan Edwards, Professor of History, Cy-Fair College. Utah: Yasmen Simonian, Professor & Chair, Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Weber State University. Vermont: Sunhee Choi, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Middlebury College. Virginia: John H. Roper, Professor of History, Emory & Henry College. Washington: Bruce Palmquist, Associate Professor of Physics & Science Education, Central Washington University. West Virginia: Carolyn Peluso Atkins, Professor of Speech Pathology & Audiology, West Virginia University. Wisconsin: Jody M. Roy, Associate Professor & Chair, Department of Communication, Ripon College

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this legislation did not happen by itself; it took hard work and perseverance. There is a long list of individuals who must be thanked. First, I want to thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Senate Legislative Counsel for their service. They did a tremendous job with this bill. I want to thank George Yin, the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, in particular. This will probably be the last tax bill George will work on for the U.S. Congress. George is returning to the University of Virginia where he is a professor. His last day is tomorrow. George has served on the Joint Committee on Taxation for just over 2 years. During that time, he has provided tremendous insight and knowledge to me and my staff. He is called upon to know all the nuances of the Tax Code and provide recommendations on tax policy. He does this with unfailing competence. His work is of the highest caliber. I commend him for his work and thank him for his service to the U.S. Congress. Next, I must thank the hardworking staff of the Finance Committee. They stayed up many a sleepless night, and I applaud them for their expert counsel. I want to thank some staff members in particular. I appreciate the cooperation we received from the Republican staff, especially Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Cathy Barre, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, Dean Zerbe, Chris Javens, John O'Neill, and Nick Wyatt. I also thank my staff for their perseverance and dedication, including Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Melissa Mueller, Matt Jones, Judy Miller, Jon Selib, Ryan Abraham, and Tom Klouda. I also thank our dedicated fellows, Mary Baker, Brian Townsend, Richard Litsey, Jorlie Cruz, and Stuart Sirkin. Finally, I thank our hardworking interns: Jennifer Alwood, Ray Campbell, Mandy Cisneros, Will Larson, and James Reavis. I want to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee and my good friend, Senatory Grassley. It is not easy putting together a reconciliation bill. I thank Senator Grassley for once again ensuring a result that could receive broad support. It is my hope that we can maintain the spirit and substance of the Senate bill as we move through conference. We have a good bill before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. I renew my request for 1\1/2\ hours equally divided.

Mr. BAUCUS. Senator Dayton has two amendments.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I anticipate that Senator Landrieu is ready to offer her amendment. I suggest she be recognized.

Mr. BAUCUS. I share Chairman Grassley's views with respect to curbing abusive tax shelters, and I look forward to working with Senators Levin and Coleman to shut down these abusive transactions. excise taxes

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield whatever time the Senator would appreciate having.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there are four votes remaining. It is my understanding they will all be voiced. However, other Senators have said they have amendments they want to offer, as well. It is appropriate we begin to cut off the number of amendments we consider tonight. Four Senators contacted me: Senator Boxer, Senator Dayton, Senator Kerry, and Senator Landrieu. The time has come to limit the number of amendments we have tonight. We have done a pretty good job accommodating Senators. I ask unanimous consent after the three remaining amendments-- Senators Bingaman, Durbin, and Nelson--are taken up, and I am told will all be voiced, that following those amendments only the amendments then be in order are amendments offered by Senator Boxer, Senator Dayton, Senator Kerry, and Senator Landrieu, and that those be the only amendments remaining to be considered to the bill tonight and to the bill at all. I amend that by saying it is my understanding that Senator Landrieu has two, but they will be voiced and not require a recorded vote, and there will be a managers' amendment that will be in order to the bill. Senator Harkin would like to be added to the list with one amendment. So, therefore, it will be: Boxer, Dayton, Kerry, Landrieu, Landrieu--again, Landrieu's will be voiced--and Harkin. I am hopeful some of these others will also be voiced when we get to them.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so that the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, may offer an amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment temporarily be laid aside so I can offer an amendment on behalf of the Democratic leader, Senator Reid.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I see Senator Santorum. Under previous order, he has the right to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so that Senator Bingaman from New Mexico may offer an amendment. I ask him to limit his remarks to a couple minutes. I yield him 3 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside so that Senator Nelson of Florida may offer an amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be set aside so that the Senator from Wisconsin can offer his amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. After the first vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have a matter we have to fix. I ask unanimous consent that the modification to the Schumer amendment No. 2635 be vitiated.

Mr. BAUCUS. The first vote would be at 7:30.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I might also say that means as to the list of Senators who come to me and say they want to speak on their amendments, I have said to them they could, but there will be a short period in which to speak, and they will have to come down here and speak some time before 7:30, if they want any time to speak.

Mr. BAUCUS. OK, fine.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is after Senator Feingold's amendment? After that?