Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the chairman. This is very important work for our national security and we are pleased that some of it is being done in Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, following the passing of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Mike Mansfield said: ``He gave us of his love that we, too, in turn, might give.'' These words ring true today as we remember the life of our late colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy. So much of this country's history in the past half century can be attributed to this one man. But Ted Kennedy was also a modest man, and he would not have put it that way. Speaking almost 30 years ago at the 1980 Democratic National Convention, he quoted Tennyson: I am a part of all that I have met . . . Tho much is taken, much abides. That which we are, we are one equal temper of heroic hearts Strong in will To strive, to see, to find and not to yield. In the more than 46 years that Senator Kennedy served this body, he did not yield and, in turn, he affected each and every American. During his career in the Senate, Senator Kennedy authored thousands of bills, and hundreds of them became law. From championing civil rights to advocating equal opportunity and higher education, to fighting for access to affordable health care for all Americans, Senator Kennedy's work has quite simply improved the quality of life for millions of Americans. Over the past 2 weeks we have heard many speak of his accomplishments. It didn't take long for me to realize when I came to this body, and more and more as each year passed, that Ted Kennedy was probably the greatest legislator in modern American political history. The guy was amazing, absolutely amazing; an inspiration for me personally to try to be a very good legislator. Many people have also said that. I am not the only one who has recognized his talents and that he is probably the best legislator in modern American political history. Let me just say why that was true for me. First of all, it was the passion of his convictions. His moral compass was set so true: for the average person, the little guy, the person who didn't have representation, health care, the poor, civil rights. He just believed so passionately, so steadfastly. His moral compass was just so firmly set. There is no question of what Ted Kennedy was and what he believed in, and it made him alive. It was his dream to fulfill the lives of the people he worked so hard for. All of us remember Ted Kennedy working so hard to fulfill his dreams. From his desk over here, he would stand up and he would thunder, red- faced. He would get so involved, so passionate, speaking so loudly, almost shouting what he believed in. You couldn't help but know that here was a guy who believed what he said and, by gosh, let's listen to him. He also had terrific staff. Ted Kennedy's staff had him so well prepared. All of these briefing books--I will never forget the briefing books Ted took, and he read them. He studied them. He was so well prepared. Along with his passion was his preparation, and his staff just helped him prepare because they were all one team. They were working so closely together for the causes they believed in. I also was impressed and found him to be such a great legislator because after the speeches he believed in so thoroughly and passionately, he would sit down with you and start to negotiate, try to work out an agreement, try to work out some solution that made sense for him and made sense for you if you happened to be on the other side. It was amazing to sit and watch him work, a different demeanor, a different temperament. He would sit there and cajole, talk, tell jokes, all in good spirit, all in an attempt to try to get to the solution. On the one hand he would be here in the Chamber and he would be thundering, but in the conference room he would be saying: OK, let's figure out how to do this. How do we get this done? It was amazing. It was such a lesson to learn just watching him legislate. I think he is also one of the best legislators in modern American political history because he had such a light touch. He really cared individually for people, not just groups but individually. We have heard references to a book he gave Senator Byrd, a poetry book, and how Senator Kennedy would bring his dogs over to Senator Byrd's office; and listening to Senator Chambliss, how Senator Kennedy made sure he knew when Senator Chambliss's grandchildren would be here so the grandchildren could see his dogs. He loved his dogs and he had that very light touch. I remember not too long ago--and Senator Byrd referred to it--I think it was Senator Byrd's 67th wedding anniversary, and Senator Kennedy had the foresight and the caring to send 67 roses to Robert Byrd and Erma Byrd. It was one of the things he just did, as well as all the letters he wrote, the handwritten letters he wrote. Here is this wonderful guy who probably never used a BlackBerry; didn't know what they were. We know what they were. We use them. He wrote notes, hundreds of notes, thousands of handwritten notes, tens of thousands of handwritten notes. It was incredible. He would write a note to anybody at any time--just a light touch--on their birthday or call them on their birthday or call somebody who was in the hospital. He would just do that, more than any other Senator here I can think of, and I would venture to say probably more than most Senators combined. He was just that way. Let me give one small example. Several years ago, in my hometown of Helena, MT, I was at a meeting and came back late at night after the meeting, and my mother said: Max, Ted Kennedy called. Really? Yes, Mom said. Well, I told him you were out, but we had a nice chat, Ted Kennedy and I. What did you talk about? We talked about the Miles City bucking horse sale. It is an event in Montana that comes up every year. Ted came and rode a horse at the Miles City bucking horse sale back in 1960. A few days later I was back on the floor of the Senate, and I walked up to Ted and I said: Ted, I understand you talked to my mother. Oh, he said. Sometimes on the telephone you are talking to somebody, you can tell who the person is. Your mother, she is such a wonderful person, so gracious, on and on talking about my mother and the conversation the two of them had. They had never met before. My mother is a staunch Republican, and here is Ted Kennedy. So I went back home a few days later, and I told my mother, I said: Mom, Ted was sure impressed with the telephone call you had. Oh, gee, that is great. That is wonderful. My mom wrote Ted a note thanking him for being so--for praising her so much to me, her son, just a few days earlier. Well, the next thing I knew, my mother and Ted were pen pals. Ted wrote a letter back to my mother, and they were back and forth and back and forth. I would be at a committee hearing someplace and Ted would say: Hey, Max, look. Here is the letter I am writing your mother. Just out of the blue. Basically, they were just reminiscing about Montana and again about the bucking horse sale, which is another reason Ted was such a great guy. He lived life so fully. He just loved life. He embraced life in all of the ways that life is available to a man. He was just wonderful that way. Back in 1960 when his brother was running for President, Ted was assigned the Western States in the 1960 Presidential campaign. So Ted was out in Montana, and they went to a Democratic gathering. There wasn't anybody there, so he went to the Miles City bucking horse sale. We in Miles City, MT, have this bucking event. We take these horses off the prairie and buck them. You bid on the horses and, obviously, the best bucking horses get the highest bid and go off with the rodeo operators and they use them. Anyway, the long and the short of it is, Ted was there and he went to the bucking horse sale and got in the booth because he wanted to speak on behalf of his brother. The announcer said: Well, young man, if you want to speak, first you have to ride a horse. Ted said: Why not. So Ted got on a horse and there is this wonderful photo of Ted at the Miles City bucking horse sale in Montana that somebody took. So there is Ted on his bronco. I don't think he made the full 8 seconds, but he sure had a great time on that horse. The long and short of it is, he is a great man for so many reasons, and we love Ted for all he was. Again, I think he was the greatest legislator I think, in modern American political history. I am touched by what a family man he was. As the years went by, after his brothers were tragically lost and all that happened in the Kennedy family, Ted was a rock to others in the family. He experienced so much and he went through so much tragedy and it has built so much character. Ted was more than a Senate icon who fought for causes, more than a voice for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. As I mentioned, he was a loving son, brother, husband, father, uncle, grandfather, and friend. Working with him for the past 30 years is one of the greatest honors I have had as a Senator. Ted, as far as I am concerned, we are going to take up your last great cause, health care reform. We are, in the Senate, doing all we can to get it passed. I, personally, pledge every ounce of energy at my command to help get health care reform passed for all the American people and for Ted Kennedy. He was a wonderful man, and he will be sorely missed. I don't think there is going to be another man or woman in the Senate who will be a giant such as Ted Kennedy. He was that great a guy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Representative John Randolph, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee in the early 1800s, said, ``We all know our duty better than we discharge it.'' U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, have two vital duties. They must protect our national security by ensuring that threats to that security do not cross our borders, and they must protect our economic security by ensuring that legitimate trade does cross our borders, smoothly and quickly. I have no doubt that CBP and ICE know these duties. But they must do a better job of discharging their trade duties. Senator Grassley and I introduced a bill that would require the agencies to do just that. The Customs Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Reauthorization Act of 2009 would direct CBP and ICE to make customs facilitation and trade enforcement a priority again, and it would provide the agencies with the tools and resources that they need to fully discharge those duties. These agencies know that high-level officials must focus on their trade duties. The bill would help the agencies discharge those duties by creating new high-level positions at CBP devoted exclusively to trade. The bill would assign new trade facilitation and enforcement duties to the highest level official at ICE. The agencies know that they must facilitate and expedite legitimate trade across our borders. The bill would help the agencies to discharge those duties by providing trade facilitation benefits, such as faster customs clearance, to importers with a history of complying with U.S. customs and trade laws. The bill would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify and provide trade facilitation benefits to importers that provide additional security information. The bill would provide funding for automated programs that would help CBP process imports more quickly. The agencies know that they must enforce U.S. trade, intellectual property, and health and safety laws at our borders. The bill would help the agencies to discharge those duties by giving CBP new tools to identify goods that are most likely to violate these laws. It would give CBP the means to prevent those goods from crossing our borders. It would require ICE to do more to prevent the importation of goods made with forced, convict, or indentured labor. The agencies know that they must listen to Congress and the business community when taking significant actions that affect America's competitiveness. The bill would help the agencies to discharge that duty by requiring CBP to engage in robust consultation before taking such steps. The agencies know that they must serve rural border areas, such as those in my home State of Montana. The bill would help the agencies to discharge that duty by creating a pilot program to establish 24-hour ports along these border areas, ensuring that legitimate trade can flow quickly through these areas. So let's come together to reauthorize CBP and ICE. Let's give these agencies the tools and resources they need to facilitate and enforce international trade. And let's help CBP and ICE to discharge these duties that are so essential to our economic security.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2303

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to pass by unanimous consent the WIPA and PABSS Reauthorization Act of 2009--H.R. 3325-- which was passed recently by the House of Representatives. The bill will extend, for 1 year, two programs that provide important assistance for Social Security and supplemental security income, SSI, disability beneficiaries who would like to return to work. Both of these programs were included in the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, which passed Congress with bipartisan support. Under the Work Incentives Planning and Assistance, WIPA, program, the Social Security Administration, SSA, funds community-based organizations to provide personalized assistance to Social Security and SSI disability beneficiaries who want to work, by helping these beneficiaries understand SSA's complex work incentive policies and the effect that working will have on their benefits. This program can help to reduce the fears many beneficiaries have about attempting to return to work. Under the Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security, PABSS, Program, SSA awards grants to protection and advocacy systems to provide legal advocacy services that beneficiaries need to secure, maintain, or regain employment. The PABSS Program also provides beneficiaries with information and advice about obtaining vocational rehabilitation and employment services. The Finance Committee and other committees in Congress have received testimony from disability advocates and other stakeholders about the importance of these programs to increasing employment among disability beneficiaries. The Social Security Administration is currently authorized to spend $23 million annually from its administrative budget to fund the WIPA Program, and $7 million annually to fund the PABSS Program. However, the authorization for both programs expires on September 30, 2009. This bill will extend the WIPA and PABSS Programs for 1 year, with no changes, while the relevant committees in Congress consider a longer term reauthorization. This 1-year extension will ensure that these programs can continue to provide disability beneficiaries with the assistance they need to return to work. I thank my colleagues for their support for temporarily extending these important programs.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I rise to express my support for the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the Federalist Papers, explaining our great Constitution and the role of the judiciary, Alexander Hamilton quoted Montesquieu to say: There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive power. We Americans should take a moment to recognize that few other nations in the world possess such a strong emphasis on individual rights and liberties--something we cherish greatly. Too often we take it for granted. We can, in large part, point to this Nation's independent judiciary as the reason for this emphasis on individual rights and liberties. Sure, they are enshrined in the Constitution, but the independent judiciary, framed in the Constitution, helps make all that possible. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated, for example: The Framers of the Constitution were so clear in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere that they felt an independent judiciary was critical to the success of the nation. Our Founding Fathers were wise in setting up three separate branches of government, including a strong and independent judiciary. The pinnacle of this system and its independence is the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land. Our Constitution embodies this independence in the separation of powers and checks and balances throughout this great document. This is the case in the structure of appointing our Supreme Court Justices. The Constitution provides of the President, for example, that: He shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall . . . appoint judges of the Supreme Court. Let me repeat, the Constitution says: the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court.'' The Senate's role is of utmost importance in defending the independence of the Supreme Court. The Senate's active advice and consent role in the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices helps to ensure that nominees have the support of a broad political consensus. Of the many responsibilities the Constitution grants to the Senate, few are more critical than the Senate's role in the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice nominees. I take--and I know each of us in the Senate does--this constitutional responsibility very seriously. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have established three criteria I use to examine nominees. These three criteria are: professional competency, personal integrity, and a view of important issues within the mainstream of contemporary judicial thought. Those are the three. They are the criteria I use. I have analyzed past Supreme Court nominees using these three criteria, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. I will review my criteria. First, professional competency. The Supreme Court must not be the testing ground for the development of a jurist's basic values. We do not have time for that. A Justice cannot learn on the job, nor should she require further training. The stakes are simply too high. She must be professionally competent on day one. Second, personal integrity. Nominees to our Nation's highest Court must be of the highest caliber. And, third, the nominee should fall within the mainstream of contemporary judicial thought. The next Justice must possess the requisite judicial philosophy to be entrusted with the Court's sweeping constitutional powers. I believe that in the case of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the answer to all three questions is a resounding ``yes.'' Judge Sotomayor is the embodiment of the American dream--rising from a Bronx public housing project to a place among the judicial elite. She attended Princeton, where she graduated among the top of her class, and she was editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School. Judge Sotomayor's work history is diverse and rich with experience. Judge Sotomayor began her legal career as assistant district attorney for New York County in 1979. She then worked as a litigator at Pavia & Harcourt, a small firm in Manhattan, where she handled commercial cases. Judge Sotomayor's 17 years on the bench, first as a district court judge, then on the second circuit, have yielded an enormous yet consistent body of work. Her opinions show thorough and thoughtful analysis, an eye for detail, and, in her own words, fidelity to the law. I have no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the professional competency that the American people require of Supreme Court Justices. Judge Sotomayor's life experiences also convey the personal integrity essential to a Supreme Court Justice. She has given back her time, energy, and expertise to the community that helped shape who she is. She has worked hard throughout her career, inspiring students across the country to pursue study of the law. For her service, Judge Sotomayor has received many honorary degrees-- many--countless awards, and accolades from her colleagues, clerks, and the academic community. Judge Sotomayor has also made personal sacrifices. She recognizes the personal sacrifices she must make in order to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court. My third criteria--that is, a nominee who falls within the mainstream of contemporary judicial thought--is met, again, by reviewing Judge Sotomayor's lengthy judicial record. Some of my colleagues want to paint her as a judicial activist with leftwing leanings. In fact, in constitutional cases that came before the second circuit, Judge Sotomayor voted with the majority 98 percent of the time--hardly a leftwing activist. In the rare cases where she held a government action unconstitutional, the decision was so clear that it was unanimous. Judges appointed by Republican Presidents have agreed with Judge Sotomayor 90 percent of the time--hardly a leftwing activist. This is not the actions of an activist judge. In fact, this is a judge who can be relied on to produce a decision that most people can agree with. I strongly believe Judge Sotomayor has met the three criteria I view essential to a Supreme Court Justice, and this was even more evident during her confirmation hearing. Over the 4 days of hearings on the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, what did we see? We saw a composed, intelligent, and thoughtful judge, someone committed to the law, and one with a rich life story and expansive judicial experience, whose perspective will enrich the judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court. In closing, I congratulate our President. I congratulate President Obama on his historic nomination. I am confident Judge Sotomayor will make an outstanding Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following individuals on my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor: Caitlin Coan, Emily Yeska, Andrew Dusek, Dan Huffman, Raphael Graybill, Philip Feldman, Josh Gardner, and Maureen Weiland.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that Laura Safdie, Aaron Guile, and Kathleen Roberts, law clerks on Senator Leahy's Judiciary Committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on the nomination of Judge Sotomayor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I recognize one of the most dedicated members of my staff, Janis Lazda. Janis joined the Senate Finance Committee in 2005 to work on international trade matters, and today he leaves us to become senior policy adviser to the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative. USTR's gain truly is our loss. For the past 5 years, Janis has demonstrated a quiet intelligence, unquestionable loyalty, and an unwavering commitment to the great State of Montana and this great country. He has worked hard to keep U.S. relations with Asia strong during these challenging economic times, and focused on improving America's competitiveness around the globe. He has spearheaded policies to increase U.S. exports to the world, and brainstormed ways to make international institutions more meaningful. He has performed all of these tasks diligently and with careful thought. And he has put the needs of Montanans and the American people first. Janis has witnessed the majestic mountains of Missoula, the bucolic beauty of the Big Hole Valley, and the memorable music of Molt. He met with hard-working people in all of these areas, and across Montana, to hear their thoughts and understand their needs. And he used these experiences to ensure that the policies crafted in Washington are meaningful for folks across America. Janis has been a sound and knowledgeable adviser. His experience and analysis have been critical to many of the trade policies formulated by the Finance Committee. I thank Janis for his hard work, and wish him well as he takes the next step to what I am sure will be a brilliant future.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have been extremely concerned about the problems lease-in/lease-out and sale-in/lease-out transactions cause our tax system for years. I have made clear before that gaming the system at the taxpayers' expense is simply unacceptable. In 2004, Senator Grassley and I successfully shut down the loophole that allowed losses from these deductions, but the current economic crisis has created new problems. I applaud the work of Senator Menendez to address these issues, and I support his efforts to resolve this problem.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I join my colleague Senator Tester in recognizing and paying tribute to MG Thomas F. Deppe, Vice Commander of Air Force Space Command, and his wife Eileen for their lifetime of service and unfaltering dedication to the U.S. Air Force and our great Nation. As both an airman and leader, spanning 42 years of military service, General Deppe's contributions to our Nation's strategic deterrence and space missions were critical to the warfighter, global economy and safety of our families. General Deppe's leadership was an essential element in winning the Cold War and vital to Air Force Space Command's support of combat operations around the world to include Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, the global war on terrorism and overseas contingency operations. General Deppe began his illustrious Air Force career by graduating from Basic Military Training School in 1967. In September of 1967, General Deppe was introduced to the Air Force through missile instrumentation electronics technical training. This training led to a series of aircraft munitions assignments and rounded out his enlisted service with an Air Force recruiting position, achieving the enlisted rank of technical sergeant. In 1977, General Deppe received his commission through the Officer Training School. This led him to his first assignment in Montana at Malmstrom Air Force Base. General Deppe's Air Force journey as an officer would take Eileen and him through a series of wing, air staff and joint assignments relating to strategic and tactical missile and space systems. He operated the ground-launched cruise missile in Europe and later served as the commander of the 351st Organizational Missile Maintenance Squadron in Missouri at Whiteman Air Force Base. Additionally, he commanded the 90th Logistics Group at Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, WY, and the 341st Space Wing in Montana. While assigned to the National Military Command Center, he directed actions during the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Space Shuttle Columbia recovery effort.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last year, America spent $2.4 trillion on health care. That is 1/6 of our economy. Yet we ranked last among major industrialized nations in the Commonwealth Fund's National Scorecard on Health System Performance, which ranks the number of deaths that could be prevented before age 75 through effective health care. Some analysts estimate that as much as 30 percent of our spending is for ineffective, redundant, or inappropriate care. That's care that does nothing to improve the health of Americans. Our system also leaves nearly 50 million Americans without health coverage and 25 million more with inadequate coverage. Most bankruptcies and foreclosures in America are related to medical costs. Our system needs reform. Today, along with Senator Conrad, the Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am proud to introduce a bill that would improve health care in America by helping doctors and patients to make better, more- informed health care decisions. This legislation would increase the chances that Americans receive the right care. This bill would provide for research that can help physicians and patients know more about what works best in medicine, and what does not. Some patients, receive medical treatments that work well. Some patients receive treatments that do not. In many cases, doctors simply don't have enough reliable evidence to decide which treatments are best for which patients. Rapid innovation and advancements in medicine have led to an ever- changing array of new and sometimes expensive technologies. The age of personalized medicine and genetic engineering will provide even more choices for patients and their physicians. Indeed, both patients and physicians can face great difficulty in choosing among treatment options. Patients and physicians need more credible information about how treatments for a specific condition compare to each other. Today, the vast majority of medical information shows how treatments work compared to placebos. Most medical information does not show how treatments work compared to each other. For example, men with prostate cancer have a choice among 3 common treatments surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Each approach yields different outcomes in terms of survival, ability to return to work, and other measures of quality of life. Comparative effectiveness research would compare each approach in a systematic way. That way, doctors and patients would have more information about how options work, and for whom. The bill that I introduce today would do just that. This bill would facilitate comparisons across a broad spectrum of health care interventions and health care strategies that are used to prevent, treat, diagnose and manage health conditions. By evaluating and comparing what works best, patients and providers can make more informed decisions about care. More specifically, this bill would create a nonprofit institute that would be responsible for setting national health care research priorities. The institute, called the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, would be a private entity. It would be governed by a multi-stakeholder, public-private sector Board of Governors. It would not be an agency of the Federal Government. Keeping the Institute a private, nonprofit entity would shelter it from potential political influence from both the executive and legislative branches of Government. The independence and expertise of the Institute would result in more credible and more useful research for Americans. The Institute would set national priorities for comparative effectiveness research and facilitate studies that would help to answer the most pressing questions about what works, and what doesn't. The Institute would have the authority to contract with experienced Federal agencies--such as the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, or with private researchers--to carry out the actual research. The Institute would also be responsible for disseminating the findings of the research in ways that make sense to both patients and providers. The Institute's work would not happen behind closed doors. The bill would provide opportunities for public input and scientific review of the integrity of the research being conducted. The Institute's meetings would be accessible to the public, and open forums would help to solicit and obtain input on the Institute's activities and agenda. Also, public comment periods would be made available to discuss research findings. The Institute's work would benefit all Americans who receive health care. So both public and private payers would fund the Institute. After an initial investment from general revenues, the Institute would be funded by an all-payer system, drawing from both public and private sources. Comparative effectiveness research would not be the ultimate decision maker. Instead, it would provide an additional tool to improve health quality. The Institute would be a health care resource, a scientific entity, a source of knowledge, and a provider of information. According to the Institute of Medicine, this research would provide better evidence--objective information--so that doctors and patients could make better decisions. If we are truly to reform our health care system, then we must get more evidence into the hands of the people making medical decisions. This research is not only about reducing health care costs. It is focused on addressing significant gaps in knowledge. It is not just the academics and economists who agree. Patient advocates like the National Breast Cancer Coalition, provider groups like the American Medical Association, and consumer groups like AARP can see the benefits of this research quite clearly. They have all extended their support. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made a significant investment towards this type of research. But that was just a first step. We must ensure that this research will be sustained in the years to come. From cars to toasters, Americans are able to readily view and evaluate information about the quality and effectiveness of so many of the items that they buy. It seems only logical that they should have information on what works and what does not when it comes to their health, especially with one in every 6 of this country's dollars leing spent on health care. It is time for Americans and their doctors to be wield the world's most advanced science, so that the most personal health care decisions, like so many of the other decisions we make, are made with access to the best available information. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last year, America spent $2.4 trillion on health care. That is 1/6 of our economy. Yet we ranked last among major industrialized nations in the Commonwealth Fund's National Scorecard on Health System Performance, which ranks the number of deaths that could be prevented before age 75 through effective health care. Some analysts estimate that as much as 30 percent of our spending is for ineffective, redundant, or inappropriate care. That's care that does nothing to improve the health of Americans. Our system also leaves nearly 50 million Americans without health coverage and 25 million more with inadequate coverage. Most bankruptcies and foreclosures in America are related to medical costs. Our system needs reform. Today, along with Senator Conrad, the Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am proud to introduce a bill that would improve health care in America by helping doctors and patients to make better, more- informed health care decisions. This legislation would increase the chances that Americans receive the right care. This bill would provide for research that can help physicians and patients know more about what works best in medicine, and what does not. Some patients, receive medical treatments that work well. Some patients receive treatments that do not. In many cases, doctors simply don't have enough reliable evidence to decide which treatments are best for which patients. Rapid innovation and advancements in medicine have led to an ever- changing array of new and sometimes expensive technologies. The age of personalized medicine and genetic engineering will provide even more choices for patients and their physicians. Indeed, both patients and physicians can face great difficulty in choosing among treatment options. Patients and physicians need more credible information about how treatments for a specific condition compare to each other. Today, the vast majority of medical information shows how treatments work compared to placebos. Most medical information does not show how treatments work compared to each other. For example, men with prostate cancer have a choice among 3 common treatments surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Each approach yields different outcomes in terms of survival, ability to return to work, and other measures of quality of life. Comparative effectiveness research would compare each approach in a systematic way. That way, doctors and patients would have more information about how options work, and for whom. The bill that I introduce today would do just that. This bill would facilitate comparisons across a broad spectrum of health care interventions and health care strategies that are used to prevent, treat, diagnose and manage health conditions. By evaluating and comparing what works best, patients and providers can make more informed decisions about care. More specifically, this bill would create a nonprofit institute that would be responsible for setting national health care research priorities. The institute, called the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, would be a private entity. It would be governed by a multi-stakeholder, public-private sector Board of Governors. It would not be an agency of the Federal Government. Keeping the Institute a private, nonprofit entity would shelter it from potential political influence from both the executive and legislative branches of Government. The independence and expertise of the Institute would result in more credible and more useful research for Americans. The Institute would set national priorities for comparative effectiveness research and facilitate studies that would help to answer the most pressing questions about what works, and what doesn't. The Institute would have the authority to contract with experienced Federal agencies--such as the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, or with private researchers--to carry out the actual research. The Institute would also be responsible for disseminating the findings of the research in ways that make sense to both patients and providers. The Institute's work would not happen behind closed doors. The bill would provide opportunities for public input and scientific review of the integrity of the research being conducted. The Institute's meetings would be accessible to the public, and open forums would help to solicit and obtain input on the Institute's activities and agenda. Also, public comment periods would be made available to discuss research findings. The Institute's work would benefit all Americans who receive health care. So both public and private payers would fund the Institute. After an initial investment from general revenues, the Institute would be funded by an all-payer system, drawing from both public and private sources. Comparative effectiveness research would not be the ultimate decision maker. Instead, it would provide an additional tool to improve health quality. The Institute would be a health care resource, a scientific entity, a source of knowledge, and a provider of information. According to the Institute of Medicine, this research would provide better evidence--objective information--so that doctors and patients could make better decisions. If we are truly to reform our health care system, then we must get more evidence into the hands of the people making medical decisions. This research is not only about reducing health care costs. It is focused on addressing significant gaps in knowledge. It is not just the academics and economists who agree. Patient advocates like the National Breast Cancer Coalition, provider groups like the American Medical Association, and consumer groups like AARP can see the benefits of this research quite clearly. They have all extended their support. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made a significant investment towards this type of research. But that was just a first step. We must ensure that this research will be sustained in the years to come. From cars to toasters, Americans are able to readily view and evaluate information about the quality and effectiveness of so many of the items that they buy. It seems only logical that they should have information on what works and what does not when it comes to their health, especially with one in every 6 of this country's dollars leing spent on health care. It is time for Americans and their doctors to be wield the world's most advanced science, so that the most personal health care decisions, like so many of the other decisions we make, are made with access to the best available information. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this Nation and this body have debated divisive trade issues for more than a century. In the 1820s, the cotton, indigo, and rice exporting southern States quarreled with northern States intent on protecting nascent manufacturing In the 1930s, President Hoover's appeals to save American jobs brought the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Since the Second World War, America has moved to open the world's markets and our own. We are better for it. But divisive trade debates do and will continue. Few debates have been as long and contentious as those regarding our economic sanctions on Cuba. I am introducing legislation today to bring this divisive debate to an end. I do so not as an ideologue or a partisan. I am neither the Cuban government's friend nor its staunchest enemy. I instead am a Montanan. Like most Montanans, I take no pleasure in disagreement. Like most Montanans, I try to make a deal when I can. Like most Montanans, I stick to the facts. Here is how I see the facts. Opening Cuba to our exports means money in the pockets of farmers and ranchers across America. Lifting financing and other restrictions on U.S. agriculture could increase U.S. beef exports from states like Montana and Colorado from $1 million to as much as $13 million. Lifting these restrictions could allow agricultural exporters in States like North Dakota and Arkansas to obtain nearly 70 percent of Cuba's wheat market, nearly 40 percent of its rice market, and more than 90 percent of its poultry market. Lifting these restrictions could allow America's farmers and ranchers to export as much as $1.2 billion in total agricultural goods to Cuba. The facts also show that European and other exporters already reap these benefits. Europe has scrapped its Cuba sanctions. Just last week, EU officials were in Havana calling for full normalization of ties. Those officials made no secret of wanting to solidify ties with Cuba now to get the jump on the U.S. Those are the facts as I see them. But that is not all I see. I am not blind to the Cuban people's suffering or the crimes of their government. I am not deaf to the calls for political and religious freedom just 90 miles off our shores. But I also see that increased trade ties historically have led to improved political ties, whether between Argentina and Brazil in this hemisphere or between former rival nations in Europe. Am I certain that increased trade will improve our political ties with Cuba? I am not. But I am certain that we have had these sanctions in place for over 5 decades. I am certain that five decades of sanctions have made no Cuban freer, no nation more prosperous, and no government more democratic. I am certain that one side has gotten its chance and its way. I am certain that the status quo must now change. Here is how I propose to change our status quo with Cuba. My bill, which 15 other Democratic and Republic Senators have joined, would help U.S. farmers and ranchers sell their products to Cuba by facilitating cash payment for agricultural goods, authorizing direct transfers between U.S. and Cuban banks, and creating a U.S. agricultural export promotion fund. This bill also eases restrictions on exports of medicines and medical devices. It allows all Americans to travel to Cuba--not just one particular group. John Stuart Mill wrote that ``Commerce first taught nations to see with goodwill the wealth and prosperity of one another. Before, the patriot . . . wished all countries weak, poor, and ill-governed but his own . . .'' For too long, America has stood atop our barricade of sanctions and looked down upon a weak, poor, and ill-governed Cuba. Let us now open our commerce with Cuba. Let us wish them wealth, prosperity, and an abundance of all that we value and hold dear in America.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this Nation and this body have debated divisive trade issues for more than a century. In the 1820s, the cotton, indigo, and rice exporting southern States quarreled with northern States intent on protecting nascent manufacturing In the 1930s, President Hoover's appeals to save American jobs brought the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Since the Second World War, America has moved to open the world's markets and our own. We are better for it. But divisive trade debates do and will continue. Few debates have been as long and contentious as those regarding our economic sanctions on Cuba. I am introducing legislation today to bring this divisive debate to an end. I do so not as an ideologue or a partisan. I am neither the Cuban government's friend nor its staunchest enemy. I instead am a Montanan. Like most Montanans, I take no pleasure in disagreement. Like most Montanans, I try to make a deal when I can. Like most Montanans, I stick to the facts. Here is how I see the facts. Opening Cuba to our exports means money in the pockets of farmers and ranchers across America. Lifting financing and other restrictions on U.S. agriculture could increase U.S. beef exports from states like Montana and Colorado from $1 million to as much as $13 million. Lifting these restrictions could allow agricultural exporters in States like North Dakota and Arkansas to obtain nearly 70 percent of Cuba's wheat market, nearly 40 percent of its rice market, and more than 90 percent of its poultry market. Lifting these restrictions could allow America's farmers and ranchers to export as much as $1.2 billion in total agricultural goods to Cuba. The facts also show that European and other exporters already reap these benefits. Europe has scrapped its Cuba sanctions. Just last week, EU officials were in Havana calling for full normalization of ties. Those officials made no secret of wanting to solidify ties with Cuba now to get the jump on the U.S. Those are the facts as I see them. But that is not all I see. I am not blind to the Cuban people's suffering or the crimes of their government. I am not deaf to the calls for political and religious freedom just 90 miles off our shores. But I also see that increased trade ties historically have led to improved political ties, whether between Argentina and Brazil in this hemisphere or between former rival nations in Europe. Am I certain that increased trade will improve our political ties with Cuba? I am not. But I am certain that we have had these sanctions in place for over 5 decades. I am certain that five decades of sanctions have made no Cuban freer, no nation more prosperous, and no government more democratic. I am certain that one side has gotten its chance and its way. I am certain that the status quo must now change. Here is how I propose to change our status quo with Cuba. My bill, which 15 other Democratic and Republic Senators have joined, would help U.S. farmers and ranchers sell their products to Cuba by facilitating cash payment for agricultural goods, authorizing direct transfers between U.S. and Cuban banks, and creating a U.S. agricultural export promotion fund. This bill also eases restrictions on exports of medicines and medical devices. It allows all Americans to travel to Cuba--not just one particular group. John Stuart Mill wrote that ``Commerce first taught nations to see with goodwill the wealth and prosperity of one another. Before, the patriot . . . wished all countries weak, poor, and ill-governed but his own . . .'' For too long, America has stood atop our barricade of sanctions and looked down upon a weak, poor, and ill-governed Cuba. Let us now open our commerce with Cuba. Let us wish them wealth, prosperity, and an abundance of all that we value and hold dear in America.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, today I would like to recognize one of the finest members of my staff to ever work for me, the State of Montana, and the U.S. Senate. Demetrios James Marantis has served in the Senate since 2005, and on Wednesday, the Senate approved his nomination to be Deputy U.S. Trade Representative. When Demetrios first joined my staff more than 4 years ago, he came with a chorus of support and an impressive set of skills and experience. This week, he leaves the Senate for his next challenge with an even larger group of supporters and another impressive list of accomplishments. Demetrios was at the center of the largest expansion and reform of trade adjustment assistance since its creation four decades ago. He was critical to our granting permanent normal trade relations to Vietnam, and instrumental in keeping U.S.-China economic ties on track in challenging times. Demetrios helped me and the Senate extend trade preference programs to the world's poorest nations, and worked to lay the groundwork for the important pending trade agreements that I hope that the Senate will consider in the coming months. He did all of this with an unwavering commitment to this country, and an unassailable reputation for fairness and openness to supporters and opponents alike. And as many of my colleagues and their staff will always remember, Demetrios never failed to bring a little bit of fun and a good sense of humor to even the hardest job. But what I will remember most about Demetrios is his commitment to the people that our economic policies affect. In Montana, Demetrios made a point to know the ranchers in Molt, the seed potato farmers in Manhattan, and the wheat farmers in Three Forks. Demetrios's intelligence and experience helped guide me and the Senate through the letter of our trade laws. But his good character and heart reminded us what those trade laws are really about America's workers, farmers, ranchers, and families. I congratulate Demetrios on his nomination, thank him for his good work, and wish him the best of luck as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that the following Finance Committee staff be granted floor privileges during consideration of the Sebelius nomination: Kelly Whitener, William Martinez, and Michael London.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this amendment sounds good on the surface, but, frankly, it will make health care reform more difficult. It is difficult enough as it is. This amendment will make it much more difficult. Some suggest that wealthier Americans should be ``means tested;'' that is, they should not get the same benefit under the Part D drug benefit as others. That is a policy that needs to be debated. I personally think that is something we should consider. After all, as the Senator from Nevada said, it is in the President's budget to means test Part D drug benefits. But that is not the point here. The point here is, do we want to help make health care reform easier or more difficult? The effect of the amendment is to reduce the Finance Committee's allocation in health care reform. That is going to make the Finance Committee's effort to get meaningful health care reform more difficult. I suggest we take up that issue--whether to means test Medicare or not--in the context of health care reform. Then the savings that would be achieved by means testing--if we enacted it--would go toward health care reform. The effect of the Senator's amendment is twofold. One is to suggest means testing Medicare Part D, which is in the President's budget, but the President doesn't want to use means testing to reduce spending on health care. He doesn't want that. So it would accomplish both purposes; that is, to be sure we meaningfully address means testing but in a way that doesn't hurt the efforts of health care reform. It makes much more sense to not adopt this amendment but take up the question of means testing in the context of health care reform, where it is part of many other components of health care reform, where the pieces will fit together in a way that makes more sense. I respectfully say this is not the place to consider means testing. It should be done in the context of health care reform. If we don't approve this amendment, then we can deal with this issue on health care reform. There are a lot of arguments for and against this. I take no firm position as chairman of the Finance Committee, but I believe the Senator's concept has merit. After all, it is in the President's budget, but it should not be done here, which has the effect of taking it out of the Finance Committee's allocation, which makes it more difficult for the Finance Committee to do its work on health care reform. I respectfully urge Senators to not support this amendment so we can make it easier to take up health care reform in a way that we can consider this policy as one of the many we take up on health care reform. Again, I urge that the amendment not be adopted so we can do our job. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have lined up to speak. So many of us want to congratulate the esteemed Senator from Iowa. I congratulate him on his 10,000th vote. Many of you know Chuck and I get together once a week. We started this practice at least 8 or 9 years ago, and sometimes he is chairman, sometimes I am chairman; chairman or ranking member, vice versa, back and forth. We meet every Tuesday at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and we have done this for 8 years. Maybe we have missed five or six or seven times, but constantly, consistently we get together to go over matters, minimize misunderstandings, and so forth. Lately, the last couple, 3 years, the meetings have been in my office. I have a little bit bigger conference room. That is not the real reason, though. The real reason is, as Chuck always reminds me, in my office the coffee is free, so it is much better to meet in my office. All of you who know Chuck know he passes the airport test; that is, if you are ever stranded in an airport for 10 or 12 hours and you are sitting next to somebody, you get to like the person or you do not get to like the person. Chuck more than passes the airport test. The more you get to know Chuck Grassley, the more you will like him. It is his decency, his honesty. He is unpretentious. It is his basic Iowa grassroots personality. It means so much to me, in spending so much time with him. The only time our meetings are cut short, I might say, is when Chuck has to dash out and get on the radio and talk to people back home in Iowa; otherwise, Chuck stays throughout the meeting. The people in Iowa mean so much to him. I might also say that we know how much he protects taxpayers' interests. It has been mentioned--whistleblower legislation, which he promotes so aggressively. He is also downright parsimonious himself. He turns the balance of his office budget back to the taxpayers. Every year, he returns a good portion back to the taxpayers. He also, I might say, promotes ethanol for several reasons. One, it is good for Iowa. But he also contributes to the reduction of fossil fuel consumption. When he comes back home from plowing his field, he is on his tractor, and he coasts downhill the last mile to save a few pennies of diesel fuel. He does. I checked that out a short while ago. Yes, he does that just to save a few pennies of diesel fuel. Anyway, I want to tell you how much I appreciate him. He is one of my very best friends. I think the measure of a Senator really is whether he or she is popular in two different areas, with two different audiences. First is the people back home--how popular is a Senator back home? The second is, how popular is he or she with his or her colleagues? There are two separate audiences. There are two separate criteria. Clearly, Chuck is popular in both areas. He is very popular in Iowa. The people of Iowa love him. The people, Members of the Senate love him. He is one heck of a guy, and I just feel so honored to be able to serve with Chuck on the Finance Committee, but also, more importantly, he is a very good friend here in the Senate. So I congratulate you, Chuck. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Bennett amendment would express the importance of taxpayers' ability to take deductions for contributions to charity. It is also important to recognize that this amendment is not inconsistent with either current law or the President's budget. This amendment is also consistent with the votes that we took last week when we affirmed our support for charitable contributions. I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment. Amendment No. 949

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is not an insignificant amendment. It is not small change. It has very significant consequences to all States. A very small number of States, a handful, will get a big windfall. All of the rest of the States will have money otherwise raised from OCS--raised from revenues from mineral leasing royalties not go to them at all. Currently, revenue goes to all 50 States. There is a small carving out for some of the coastal States and Florida. This amendment says: All the revenue raised, all the coastal revenue goes to only those few coastal States, which means revenue would not go to the other States that benefit currently from oil and gas leasing revenue. The other big consequence is, this is a big tax increase. It is a revenue-neutral provision. That means it is $110 billion, conservatively, over 10 years, which means we have to raise taxes $110 billion to pay for giving money to a small handful of States and take it away from the majority of the States. I strongly urge members not to support this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment for a lot of reasons. No. 1, this is an unfunded mandate. The TANF program, the low- income program, the welfare program, is a block grant program. We give to all the States and the States set up their own systems under TANF. This is an unfunded mandate. It tells States they have to test all low- income people for drugs. I think, frankly, it is a mean-spirited amendment. I believe we should not equate all low-income families with drug addiction. States can decide for themselves if they want to drug test. My State of Montana does. TANF, again, is a block grant program. States can decide for themselves what they want to do. We should not equate all low- income families with drug addiction, and I strongly encourage this amendment be soundly defeated.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the chairman of the committee and the ranking member did such a wonderful job. I think we should all express our appreciation. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2009, along with my good friend, Senator Grassley from Iowa. As we all know, the country, including my home State of Montana, is losing precious agricultural and ranch lands at a record pace. While providing Montana and the Nation with the highest quality food and fiber, these farms and ranches also provide habitat for wildlife and the open spaces, land that many of us take for granted and assume will always be there. Conservation easements have been tremendously successful in preserving open space and wildlife habitat. Montana has begun to recognize the importance of using conservation easements to preserve these lands. We currently have more than 1.5 million acres covered by conservation easements. To some, that may seem like a large amount, but this is Montana, a State that covers 93,583,532 acres. To assure that open space and habitat will be there for future generations, we must help our hardworking farmers and ranchers preserve this precious heritage and their way-of-life. The Congress recognized this by providing targeted income tax relief to small farmers and ranchers who wish to make a charitable contribution of a qualified conservation easement. The provision allows eligible farmers and ranchers to increase the amounts of deduction that may be taken currently for charitable contributions of qualified conservation easements by raising the Adjusted Gross Income, AGI, limitations to 100 percent and extending the carryover period from 5 years to 15 years. In the case of all landowners, the AGI limitation was raised from 30 percent to 50 percent. This provision will expire at the end of this year. The number of acres protected and easements held by state and local land trusts has grown as a result of this incentive. According to the Land Trust Alliance, America's Land Trusts protected 535,000 more acres with conservation easements in the first two years with the new tax incentive than in the previous two years, a 36 percent increase. In 2006 and 2007, land trusts added over 6,000 easements, about 2,000 more than the 2 years before the incentive. The Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2009 would make this allowable deduction permanent, building on the success of conservation easements. Our farmers and ranchers will be able to preserve their important agricultural and ranching lands for future generations, while continuing to operate their businesses. Landowners, conservationists, the Federal Government, and local communities are working together to preserve our precious natural resources. This legislation is vitally important to Montana, and to every other State in the Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2009, along with my good friend, Senator Grassley from Iowa. As we all know, the country, including my home State of Montana, is losing precious agricultural and ranch lands at a record pace. While providing Montana and the Nation with the highest quality food and fiber, these farms and ranches also provide habitat for wildlife and the open spaces, land that many of us take for granted and assume will always be there. Conservation easements have been tremendously successful in preserving open space and wildlife habitat. Montana has begun to recognize the importance of using conservation easements to preserve these lands. We currently have more than 1.5 million acres covered by conservation easements. To some, that may seem like a large amount, but this is Montana, a State that covers 93,583,532 acres. To assure that open space and habitat will be there for future generations, we must help our hardworking farmers and ranchers preserve this precious heritage and their way-of-life. The Congress recognized this by providing targeted income tax relief to small farmers and ranchers who wish to make a charitable contribution of a qualified conservation easement. The provision allows eligible farmers and ranchers to increase the amounts of deduction that may be taken currently for charitable contributions of qualified conservation easements by raising the Adjusted Gross Income, AGI, limitations to 100 percent and extending the carryover period from 5 years to 15 years. In the case of all landowners, the AGI limitation was raised from 30 percent to 50 percent. This provision will expire at the end of this year. The number of acres protected and easements held by state and local land trusts has grown as a result of this incentive. According to the Land Trust Alliance, America's Land Trusts protected 535,000 more acres with conservation easements in the first two years with the new tax incentive than in the previous two years, a 36 percent increase. In 2006 and 2007, land trusts added over 6,000 easements, about 2,000 more than the 2 years before the incentive. The Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2009 would make this allowable deduction permanent, building on the success of conservation easements. Our farmers and ranchers will be able to preserve their important agricultural and ranching lands for future generations, while continuing to operate their businesses. Landowners, conservationists, the Federal Government, and local communities are working together to preserve our precious natural resources. This legislation is vitally important to Montana, and to every other State in the Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.