Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the majority seeks to go to conference on the House-passed tax reconciliation bill. The House-passed bill includes tax cuts for dividends and capital gains. And the House-passed bill does not include language to prevent 17 million middle-income Americans from getting a tax increase from the alternative minimum tax.

The Constitution requires the House to go first on tax measures like this. In order to build momentum for their tax cuts, the majority in the Senate chose to proceed before the House. But now the Constitution requires that the Senate take up the House-passed tax reconciliation bill and amendment.

That is where we are.

There are a number of Senators on this side of the aisle who would like to avail themselves of the opportunity to propose amendments to the House-passed bill. I expect that several Senators would choose to substitute middle-income tax cuts as alternatives to the dividend and capital gains tax cuts.

It is important to remember that under the Budget Act Senators would have up to 20 hours to debate amendments to the House-passed bill. I, for one, would seek to offer a motion to instruct conferees on this bill to ensure that we do not raise taxes on those 17 million Americans who become subject to the AMT, unless we act. Under the Budget Act, Senators would have an additional 10 hours to debate motions to instruct conferees. We are not in the position to conduct 10 hours of debate at this late hour. The exercise, I might say, would be inappropriate. So I must object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the majority, through the Senator from Texas, seeks unanimous consent to pass the House bill which extends the AMT exemption level. The House- passed bill purports to be an AMT hold harmless bill. It is not. It does not hold everyone harmless.

In fact, 600,000 additional families will pay AMT next year under that House bill which the majority seeks our consent. Under the version we in the Senate passed last month, with 64 Senators in support, we ensure that not one additional taxpayer faces higher taxes in 2006 due to an onerous alternative minimum tax.

The same cannot be said of this House bill for which consent is agreed to.

It is true that if Congress does not act, 17 million more middle- income Americans will be subject to the AMT come January 1. We would prefer to get it right the first time and not have to make promises to close the gap for those 600,000 hard-working American taxpayers next year.

I ask the Senator from Texas if she would amend her request instead to seek consent for an AMT relief amendment that I believe the majority would be supportive of, since it shows the Senate's provision, so that no AMT taxpayers are created next year. Further, while we are seeking to do these tax cuts outside of reconciliation, we would have them count against the total allowed under reconciliation. That would be part of the amendment.

The text of that Senate amendment is pending at the desk, and I am asking, Will the Senator from Texas accept this amendment?

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

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

Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from Texas. I think we all agree we have to do something about the AMT. It is a big problem.

I, frankly, tell the Senator I have introduced a bill to totally repeal AMT. It is a pernicious stealth tax and should not be incurred. We would like to work with the Senator to try and find a way to accomplish that.

I support the Health and Welfare Relief Act of 2005. This bill

will provide funding for important initiatives that take effect in January 2006, just a few days from now.

This morning the Senate passed, by the slimmest of margins, S. 1932, legislation to cut about $40 billion from mandatory spending programs over the next 5 years. I did not support S. 1932 because I believe it contains bad policy on Medicaid, on welfare, and on child support enforcement, among other things.

For example, S. 1932 includes $5 billion in cuts to the child support enforcement program, which will mean that an estimated $19.6 million in child support funds will go uncollected in Montana over the next 10 years. That is money that should go to needy Montana kids.

As for Medicaid, S. 1932 contains almost $2 billion in increased copays for Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as other Medicaid cuts. There are right ways to cut health care costs, through greater efficiencies that will save more money over time, and there is a wrong way to cut costs: on the backs of the Americans who can least afford to pay more for their health care. S. 1932 goes the wrong way and ignores the Senate's strong instruction to protect Medicaid beneficiaries from deep spending cuts. Last week 75 Senators supported a motion I offered in the Senate instructing budget conferees not to come back with a bill that included higher Medicaid copays and benefit cuts. Passage of S. 1932 is inconsistent with that vote.

S. 1932 is bad news for the welfare program as well. Despite a Senate vote of 64 to 27 in support of removing TANF from S. 1932, the bill that the Senate passed today does just that: it reauthorizes TANF through the budget reconciliation process, with a punitive and unnecessarily austere set of provisions. The TANF Program, originally passed in 1996, has successfully reduced welfare caseloads and focused on moving parents from welfare to work. Changes to the TANF Program should build on the success of 1996 reforms, not reverse that success, as S. 1932 will ultimately do.

Unfortunately, S. 1932 takes something that is not broken--and fixes it. For example, S. 1932 would raise work requirements without providing the funding needed to help States get people working. In fact, while S. 1932 includes $1 billion in additional funding for childcare, that is $7.4 billion short of what the Congressional Budget Office estimates to be the cost to States of meeting the TANF work requirements under this bill.

The Health and Welfare Relief Act would extend TANF for an additional year, maintaining current policy on this important program. The Health and Welfare Relief Act would also extend transitional medical assistance, TMA, for an additional year, a program that is critical for helping families make the transition from welfare to work.

The Health and Welfare Relief Act also contains a fix to the Medicare physician payment formula, which is set to cut Medicare physician payments by 4.4 percent on January 1. It prevents a cap on Medicare physical therapy from taking effect. And it extends an important provision for small rural hospitals' outpatient departments, helping them stay afloat. The bill also provides $60 million for CMS administrative funding, which should be spent to help educate seniors about the new Medicare drug benefit. And it contains $80 million for important legislation that I have sponsored related to high-risk pools, which are often the insurer of last resort.

Finally, the Health and Welfare Relief Act includes important legislation providing relief to individuals and States harmed by Hurricane Katrina. Like the Lincoln amendment voted on in the Senate November 3, this bill contains provisions to: provide temporary Medicaid relief to Katrina survivors; help States struggling to meet health care costs incurred as a result of Katrina; and assist providers dealing with Katrina-related uncompensated care costs.

I support the minority leader's efforts to pass these timely and critical provisions through the Health and Welfare Relief Act of 2005. While I do not support S. 1932, we should take the positive elements of that bill--as well as important provisions to aid Katrina victims--and pass them today.

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

I don't see any reason why we can't finish all our voting tomorrow. We all know what the issues are. We all know what the votes are. I don't see any reason to delay. We ought to vote.

There are so many families here, so many spouses, so many children, families want to get together. This is, after all, Christmas. I don't know why in the world we don't schedule all of our votes by tomorrow so at the very least by tomorrow we can start to head home with our loved ones. Can't the leader work that out?

All the cloture votes can occur tomorrow.

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

About 25 minutes.

Mr. President, I echo a lot of the same concerns just voiced by the Senator from Illinois. We have all been here a few years, and we see some things that are questionable. But the actions taken by the majority in this session of this Congress are beyond questionable. In many cases, I think they are outrageous, and I am very glad the Senator from Illinois brought the Senate's attention to them.

Mr. President, I am here to speak on the pending legislation, and that is the budget reconciliation bill that is before us. I oppose this budget reconciliation bill, and I do so for a couple of very basic reasons.

First of all, this bill would cause many of America's poorest citizens to go without needed medical treatment. Just think of that: some of the poorest citizens in our country to go without needed medical treatment. It would make it harder for many of America's neediest citizens to move off of welfare and on to work. It would make it harder, not easier, to get off of welfare and on to work. It would also deprive many single parents help in getting child support from their deadbeat spouses. It makes it harder to get child support from deadbeat spouses. That is what this bill does, and I will explain later why that is the case. And this bill would undercut American lumber workers in their dispute with Canadian lumber.

There is a better way. The better way is something much more similar to what the Senate passed here, although I opposed it because I thought it was so draconian, and I opposed it because I felt it would lay the seeds for just what is happening here today, and that is a conference report that is much, much worse than the Senate-passed bill.

I think the Senate should vote down this bill. We do not have to pass it this year. This is not an appropriations bill. This is not a tax bill. It does not have to be passed this year. It should be voted down so we can get to work next year and cut the budget in a more fair and more moderate way, rather than this draconian way contained in this bill.

There is a right way and a wrong way, for example, to control health care spending. We all know health care costs are high, but let's just reflect a little bit and try to figure out what is the right way to cut health care costs to address that situation and do that rather than the wrong way.

Well, I might say, we in this body included some of the right way in the Senate-passed reconciliation bill. What is that? We included provisions to put us on the road to paying for performance and quality in health care. That is the right way to control health care costs; that is, to reimburse providers--doctors and hospitals--a little bit more when they show their outcomes are a little better, they are doing a better job. That means health care costs will come down because the quality will increase and we will not be providing, in many cases, health care that is irrespective of quality. We have to start addressing quality in health care. The Senate-passed bill started to address that. The conference report hardly even touches that. I will explain that a little bit later, too.

What does this bill do? Instead, this bill merely cuts holes in the safety net. It cuts holes in the safety net. It does not shore it up and try to figure out ways to address the problems; it cuts holes and makes things worse. How? Well, it raises Medicaid copayments for those least able to pay. It raises costs for people on Medicaid. It also allows States to cut Medicaid benefits below existing minimum benefits. That is the wrong way to control health care costs. The better way is to address paid performance and quality. The wrong way is to just willy-nilly cutting expenditures for the poorest of our Americans; that is, for the Medicaid Program.

We have also seen how the wrong way works, not in theory but in practice. Increasing costs for poor people forces them not to seek health care when they need it. It has that effect. When the poor people in our country have to pay that much more for health care, what do they do? They don't get the health care. What happens? They live a little bit more with the illness they have. What is the consequence of that? They come back to the emergency room later when their condition gets worse. The system ends up spending more on health care rather than less. The burden of uncompensated care grows. You and I and all the rest of us who pay for health care end up paying still more for health care because of the increased uncompensated care because the poorer people will not be seeking the health care they need but put it off and, therefore, go to emergency rooms, and we end up paying more. That is the way the wrong way works. That is the way provided for in this bill.

Furthermore, this bill is not a moderate package. Far from it. The Senate-passed bill was more moderate. Instead, the bill before us hews largely to the House-passed bill which is not moderate. It is extreme. It is draconian. The bill before us, which hews mostly to the House side, would impose nearly $2 billion in increased cost sharing on Medicaid beneficiaries or about 80 percent of the cost-sharing increases in the House bill. What else? The bill would also allow State Medicaid Programs to offer Medicaid beneficiaries an ``actuarially equivalent'' benefit package. What does that mean? I will tell you what it means. It means reduced benefits. It is a fancy euphemism for reduced benefits for Medicaid beneficiaries. States will also be able to impose new premiums for coverage and to drop individuals from Medicaid if they can't pay.

Last week I offered a motion to instruct participants of this conference not to harm Medicaid beneficiaries by passing a budget reconciliation bill that resembles the House-passed bill. The Senate overwhelmingly supported that motion. The vote was 75 to 16. I was heartened. I felt good about that action. The Senate was speaking clearly and strongly not to let the conferees impose draconian cuts. Senators who supported that motion should stick to their guns. They should remain consistent in their support of Medicaid. They should vote against this reconciliation conference report in view of what the Congress has done juxtaposed to that 75-to-16 vote.

I am disappointed with many of the provisions included in this budget reconciliation bill. I am also disappointed with provisions that were not included in this bill. The conference report does not include meaningful pay-for-performance and quality provisions. We live in a country that spends twice as much as any other country on health care per capita. Yet our country ranks

37th in the world on quality. Think of that. We spend twice as much per capita as any other country in the world and yet we rank 37th in the world on quality. Our country leaves almost 16 percent of our population with no health care coverage at all.

We are not getting good value for our health care dollar. The value that each health care dollar buys varies widely from patient to patient. Consider recent research from Dartmouth that looked at large hospitals in California.

That research found that per-person Medicare spending on health care in the last 2 years of life ranged from $20,000 to almost $90,000. The more expensive patients were not sicker. That is the point. They did not receive higher quality care. That is also the point. But they cost the Medicare Program over four times more.

I was proud to work with the chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. Grassley, to write legislation bringing quality improvement and accountability to Medicare. We worked hard on that. We got a bill passed out of committee. Under our Medicare Value Purchasing Act, Medicare providers would be held accountable for the care they provide. And the best providers would be rewarded accordingly.

Doesn't that make sense, that we reward quality? Shouldn't we do that in the health care system? We don't today in America. Most every other industry is rewarded for quality, but our health care service by and large is not. The Senate included our pay-for-performance legislation in the budget reconciliation bill that passed this Chamber last month. I did not support the larger bill, but I was pleased that our Medicare quality legislation was included in the package. But our quality bill has mostly been stripped in the conference report.

The conference report expands existing quality reporting requirements for hospitals. It sets up minimal reporting requirements for some home health. The report includes a study on pay for performance in hospitals and some minimal payment changes to discourage a couple of hospital- acquired infections. These provisions are only for hospitals and are mostly at the discretion of the Secretary.

Moreover, these provisions are delayed until years after the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission recommended that Medicare providers would be ready to be paid for quality. I am disappointed to see Congress setting the bar so low because we have so little time in which to address the increasing costs of health care and all the problems that creates. I oppose this conference report because it doesn't begin to address what could and should be done. I remain fully committed to seeing Medicare pay-for-performance become law.

I also supported a motion to instruct conferees related to TANF, the Nation's welfare program. Offered by Senator Carper, this motion instructed conferees not to reauthorize TANF through the budget reconciliation process. That was the motion offered by the Senator from Delaware. That passed by a large vote.

What happened? First, let's remember that Congress enacted the TANF Program back in 1996. It was enacted to help welfare recipients get work skills and to help low-income families become economically self- sufficient. I supported it in 1996. Many Democrats did not, but I thought it was a good way to get people off of welfare and a fair way to get people back to work. What has happened? Welfare reform has mostly succeeded. That 1996 bill was a good bill. States have adopted creative policies to support low-income families making the transition from welfare to work, and millions have moved to self-sufficiency. It is not great, but it is a lot better than what it was prior to 1996.

The TANF law expired in 2002. Senator Grassley, chairman of the committee, and I worked diligently on the TANF reauthorization bill this year. It was a compromise that enjoyed near unanimous support in the committee. We could not get that bill up in the full Senate. There were a few willful Senators who opposed it, even though it had the near unanimous support of the Finance Committee. It was a moderate reauthorization of TANF.

Let's also remember policy changes to TANF--and they are quite pervasive and significant--do not belong in the fast-track budget reconciliation process. It does not belong there. The Presiding Officer knows that, as does everybody in this body. That process was designed to reduce the deficit, not to reauthorize important safety net programs such as TANF or other major policy issues. That is particularly true given the nature of the TANF provisions in this bill. This conference report contains strict new work requirements in TANF. Not only is it a reauthorization, it has provisions that make the program not work, make it worse. It is not moderate. It makes it worse. It is in this conference report.

This report undermines the State flexibility necessary to meet the standards of their most vulnerable citizens. This conference report provides only $1 billion in childcare funds, even though we need $12.4 billion in childcare funding to keep up with inflation. How miserly is that? Only $1 billion in childcare, when we really need 12 billion. Let's compromise, maybe 6, $7 billion; that is a compromise. That is midway between what this bill provides and what inflation calls for. But no, there is only $1 billion in this bill.

The report also foists a set of unfunded mandates on States, mandates that would harm low-income families. Let's not forget these families are playing by the rules right now. They are trying to do what is right. They are trying to work their way off of welfare and trying to get into sustainable employment. But this conference report eliminates the State flexibility that has made the TANF Program a resounding success.

We should reauthorize TANF. We should improve the program to focus on reducing poverty as well as welfare caseloads. And we should ensure that more people can leave welfare for sustainable work.

This conference report does just the opposite. More families will lose assistance. And our State partners will lose the flexibility that they need to support families in their time of need.

Speaking of families, what about the child support enforcement provisions in this bill? This conference report includes a $5 billion cut in Federal funding for child support enforcement efforts. That's right, a $5 billion cut.

States use these funds to track down absent parents, to establish legally enforceable child support orders, and to collect and distribute child support owed to families. These cuts will take billions of dollars out of the pockets of mothers and children who are owed child support. This cut is simply indefensible.

This bill also fails to adequately address the health needs of Katrina victims. It has been nearly 4 months since Katrina hit, resulting in over a thousand deaths, the displacement of over a million people, and a reconstruction bill that may exceed a couple hundred billion dollars. The Katrina disaster was unprecedented. It required an unprecedented response by Congress. That's why I worked with Chairman Grassley in the days following the hurricane to write S. 1716, the Emergency Health Care Relief Act.

That bill would have provided 5 months of temporary Medicaid coverage for Katrina evacuees in poverty.

That bill would have shored up State Medicaid programs overwhelmed by Katrina evacuees. That bill would have reimbursed providers for uncompensated care provided to Katrina evacuees. And that bill would have helped States with the unprecedented burden on Gulf State welfare programs.

But the Senate did not pass that bill. The Senate could not even take it up.

We tried to take it up many times. We stood on the floor many times and asked unanimous consent to bring up the bill, but we were opposed by a band of two or three or four Senators, but we cannot understand why. I think, basically, they are doing it at the behest of the White House, the President. The President didn't want to help people down there with their health care needs, and the congressional leadership did his bidding.

I appreciate Chairman Grassley's efforts to help Katrina victims. He fought to pass S. 1716 legislation against the wishes of the White House and his congressional leadership. I want him to know that I appreciate his efforts.

When the Senate eventually passed this budget reconciliation measure, it included some Katrina relief. It was an

insufficient amount. And I could not support it. It was so paltry, it was an insult. As for this conference report before us today, it is still insufficient. Moreover, its Katrina funding comes in the form of a block grant.

So States affected by Katrina, as well as States treating Katrina evacuees, are given $2 billion for their Katrina health-care needs, whether that is a sufficient amount or not. Both the House and Senate bills had provided for 100 percent federal financing over the short term for all States with Katrina-related Medicaid costs.

Finally, I want to briefly mention an important trade issue. This bill repeals the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also known as the Byrd amendment. This repeal could not come at a worse time for the American lumber industry. The industry has recently suffered a series of setbacks in its long-running dispute with Canada on imports of Canadian softwood lumber.

The Byrd amendment is one of the few tools the industry still has to encourage Canada to settle the lumber dispute once and for all. Repealing the Byrd amendment now pulls the rug right out from under the industry. I won't do that. And I urge my colleagues who are friends of the lumber industry to join me in supporting the industry by voting against this bill.

We don't have to pass this bill this year, Mr. President. There is no need. None. So let's not pass it and do what is right in a subsequent reconciliation bill.

Mr. President, there is a great deal to be disappointed about in this spending reconciliation legislation. It does not meet the health and welfare needs of Katrina victims. It makes health care for the poorest among us more expensive and lets well-heeled people off the hook.

It puts forth an unreasonably austere welfare program in a vehicle where it doesn't belong. It fails to advance the Medicare quality agenda that many of us have worked so hard to make reality. And it undermines the U.S. lumber industry at the worst possible moment.

In short, Mr. President, the Senate should reject this bill. The Senate can do better. I urge my colleagues to do better by the American people by voting ``no.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a lengthy list of all of the groups that oppose this bill.

This is a lengthy list. I don't have time to read them all.

The groups that start with A, such as AARP, for example, are at the head of the list. This is seven pages. Let me guess how many groups per page. It is about 30 groups per page at least, in groups of seven. So 30 times 7 is a couple hundred groups that are opposed to this bill-- for good reason. This is not something they willy-nilly just came up with; they have looked at this bill. They have concluded, as I have, that we should not pass this bill. We don't have to pass it now. We can do it next year. We should go home for Christmas.

This is some Christmas present. This bill cuts Medicaid to people, pulls the rug out from under the lumber industry, and it hurts low- income people trying to get to work and off of welfare. Some Christmas present. We should go home for Christmas and not pass this legislation and then come back next year and do the right thing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express a little hometown pride.

Last Saturday, I had the great opportunity to watch history in the making in Savannah, TN, as the Carroll College Fighting Saints from Helena, MT, marched to victory over the St. Francis Cougars from Fort Wayne, ID.

Carroll College is a private, Catholic college in my hometown of Helena, MT. Carroll is home to 1,500 students and enjoys a host of outstanding accomplishments in its nationally award-winning academic and pre-professional programs. Carroll is especially known for its flagship pre-medical, engineering and nursing programs.

The Carroll Talking Saints Forensics Team is ranked in the top five in the Nation and has reigned as Northwest Regional Champions for the past 15 years. It is a small school, with a huge record of accomplishment.

The Carroll College Fighting Saints are the only team on any level of college football in the modern era to win four national titles in a row.

They only gave up 9 points per game this season, adding to their outstanding national accomplishments.

Led by Tyler Emmer, who claimed the NAIA player of the year for the second time, the Saints offensive attack has piled up impressive numbers this season. The Saints can stretch the field with long passes or they can use their short passing game to keep the chains moving, as they did last Saturday.

It was wonderful to be there and watch, as the PA kept saying, ``Move those chains, move those chains,'' as Carroll kept scoring on the first down.

Emmert has thrown for 3,039 yards and 33 touchdowns this season. He owns a career record of 50-to-3 wins as a starter for the Saints. Emmert and his teammate Jeff Shirley were named Frontier Conference Players of the Year. A class act, Tyler is the first to credit his teammates for his success.

To win Saturday, putting the Carroll College Fighting Saints in the record book, is more than just about football. It is about hard work, dedication, competitiveness, leadership, friendship, and family.

In his 7-year career at Carroll, head coach Mike Van Diest led his team to four national championships. Mike again was named Frontier Conference Coach of the Year. He is a class act.

Working tirelessly to inspire these young athletes, Mike has created more than a championship football team. He has taught them the value of a quality education, the strength of teamwork, and the importance of giving back to the community and those in need. Coach Van Diest defines what it is to be a true Montanan. I commend him for setting such high standards for all of us.

Also, congratulations go to Carroll College athletic director Bruce Parker and his staff.

I recognize Carroll College President Tom Trebon for his leadership and commitment to Carroll College.

Finally, I want to commend my good friend from Indiana, Senator Evan Bayh. The Senator and I had a little wager on the game. We went double or nothing on a bet from last year--Montana-brewed beer against Indiana-grown popcorn. I look forward to the popcorn. We appreciate the Senator being such a good sport.

Carroll College is more than a 4-year experience; it is for life. As the 17 senior players complete their football careers, they begin life's journey more equipped to meet the challenges of their new lives. I am confident the Saints will continue to march on to many more victories. They are a wonderful bunch of guys and gals at Carroll College, a great team, a great coach. I was there Saturday to watch the game. I was so pleased to be part of the Carroll family, and I cannot commend all of them enough for what they do in the best sense of the term, all the values that mean so much to basic America. I thank Carroll College for what you do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about the PATRIOT Act. I voted against cloture for the PATRIOT Act because I do not feel that this bill is good for our country. The conference report invades our most treasured civil liberties--the right to be left alone without the Government invading our personal space. I know the people of Montana value this freedom. So does the rest of the country. We can be safe from terrorism and at the same time be free from Government restrictions on our basic civil liberties. The conference report does not strike this essential balance. Instead, it infringes on the rights we hold most dear.

The Senate bill I supported in July was a joint effort, between Republicans and Democrats, which took important steps to protect the freedoms of innocent Americans. At the same time, the Senate bill made sure that the Government had the power it needed to investigate potential terrorists and terrorist activities. I am deeply disappointed in the conference report which retreats too far from the bill I supported in the Senate. The conference report fails to make some vitally important reforms to the PATRIOT Act that we, in Senate, agreed to in July. My colleagues have spoken at length about the broad, intrusive powers of section 215. I share these concerns on the expansive powers given to the Government in the conference report. I am also seriously disturbed by the recent news of the Government's ability to spy on innocent U.S. citizens and listen to our private conversations.

This conference report is flawed. And it needs work. Let me make myself clear. I am not opposed to reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.

We need to work together to make the necessary improvements on this very important piece of legislation. We must put aside our party lines and come to an agreement that gives our law enforcement officers the ability to do their jobs. But we must also preserve our freedoms in the process. We can protect the country from terrorism while at the same time protecting all innocent Americans from unnecessary Government intrusion. The safety of our country depends on it.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the lives of two people very close to me, Montana, and the Senate. Stan and Eunice Kimmitt were both remarkable individuals and touched many lives over the years. In an effort to preserve their memory, I

think it is fitting that I share the kind remarks made at their funerals with the full Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the material be printed in the Record.

Yes, I agree. In applying the unique limit of Internal Revenue Code section 664(g)(7), the valuation should be determined upon allocation to the participant's account.

Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the long overdue establishment of a continuing medical education program in Montana. The Northwest Research and Education Institute is a joint venture of St. Vincent Healthcare and Rocky Mountain Health Network, formed to serve the research and education needs of both the Montana Region of the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System which stretches from Butte to Miles City and the nearly 500 physicians and 7 hospitals associated with Rocky Mountain Health Network in Montana and Wyoming.

As many know, for too long, Montana was the only state in the US without a continuing medical education accrediting entity. The other 49 States have been able to provide immediate continuing education programs. Montana's medical community had to go hundreds of miles out of State to further their education. The people of my great State deserve the best health care possible, and it is imperative that medical practitioners are able to continue their education. Our physicians, nurses, and pharmacists have been asking for more effective medical education services, and I am pleased to say that now they have it.

I am proud to have secured the initial $250,000 to assist the Northwest Research and Education Institute to complete the accreditation process. Securing this funding for me was a top priority as Montanans medical practioners shouldn't have to travel hundreds, if not thousands, of miles to receive their required training.

Continuing medical education programs provide education to physicians, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, and other health care professionals to keep them up to date with the latest in medicine. This, of course, translates to better health care for patients. Rural healthcare providers have special needs for continuing education because they practice so far from each other and from centers of education. Now that education can be obtained by a health care provider in Montana.

I am particularly proud that the Northwest Research and Education Institute recently completed their application and received their accreditation. The accreditation is a stamp of quality approval that puts the Northwest Research and Education Institute in a league with medical schools, professional societies and other organizations which offer the highest standards of continuing medical education.

I am proud of the accomplishments of the Institute already and I am confident that the Institute will continue to accomplish its goals of providing quality continuing medical education programs to Montana's medical community.

Mr. President, shortly, we will complete legislative business and adjourn for the year. Senators will leave to spend the holidays with our families. Senators will travel to the comfort of our homes.

But there are still those in the gulf region who do not have homes.

Hurricane Katrina struck almost 4 months ago. We cannot, in good conscience, conclude our action for the year without passing tax relief for the gulf region.

The legislation before us today is a good bill. We must pass it today.

In September, I was pleased that Congress could come together and quickly pass emergency tax relief for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Prior to passing that legislation, I promised that I would work with my colleagues to draft a long-term tax relief package. And that is what we did.

We worked to create legislation that would help rebuild homes and businesses. We worked to create legislation that would pump money into local economies. And we worked to create legislation that would help distressed working families.

We must come together again. We must pass this legislation today.

On November 18th, the Senate passed the tax reconciliation bill. We included Hurricane tax relief. We included Alternative Minimum Tax relief. And we included more than a dozen important tax provisions that expire on December 31st, including the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the Research and Development Tax Credit.

With the help of many, Chairman Grassley and I fit all of that legislation within the constraints of the budget resolution's instructions.

But the House did not take up our bill. Instead, the House passed hurricane relief and Alternative Minimum Tax relief outside of the budget reconciliation process. Then the next day, the House passed a tax reconciliation bill.

Why did the House need three bills to achieve what the Senate succeeded in passing in one bill?

The reason is simple. The reason is the capital gains and dividends tax cut.

I am disappointed in the House. I am disappointed that Congress could not pass all the important tax relief that the Senate did in one bill.

And that is why we have the legislation before us today, the House hurricane tax relief bill.

The amendment that Chairman Grassley and I have crafted to this bill recognizes that to revitalize the gulf region, the region must have a strong economy. We must encourage individuals to return. And that means that there must be jobs for them to return to. This legislation gives businesses help to create those jobs.

We would provide bonus depreciation. We would increase small business expensing limits. We would also provide new authority for tax-favored private activity and mortgage bonds.

We would also extend to victims of Hurricanes Rita and Wilma some of the tax relief that we provided to victims of Hurricane Katrina in September. This includes penalty-free early tax-free withdrawals from pensions and IRAs. We would allow victims to fully deduct casualty losses. And we would remove the cap on allowable corporate charitable contributions made in response to the hurricanes.

And thanks to the hard work and persistence of the good Senators from Florida and Texas, we have been able to forge an agreement to provide extra low-income housing benefits for the Rita and Wilma hurricane zones. My good friend from Florida, Senator Nelson, has made the convincing case that these devastated areas need more assistance with low-income housing, and I am pleased to say this bill will be providing that very help.

The substitute that Senator Grassley and I offer today provides $8 billion in tax relief for the gulf region. We take the House bill, but we provide additional tax relief for employers and students to encourage people to return to the gulf region.

One item of particular importance to me is tax relief to employers who continued to pay their workers after the hurricanes struck. Employers located in the Katrina, Rita, and Wilma disaster zones will be able to take up to a $2,400 tax credit on wages paid to employees during the period the business was shut down. These business owners have tapped into their savings to help out their workers. They deserve tax relief. We provided this relief in our first bill, but it was limited to small employers. I have always felt and argued strongly that any employer that helps out their workers while the business is shut down deserves this assistance. I am very pleased that we were able to eliminate this cap, and extend this relief for the Rita and Wilma zones as well.

Another priority item for me is a provision to encourage students to return to the gulf region. Many colleges and universities were forced to shut down after Hurricane Katrina and students have been scattered across the country. To encourage these students, and new students as well, to come back to the gulf region, we double the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits. Students from around the country would be able to take a credit up to $4,000 for tuition, room and board, books, and fees for attending college in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. I was very pleased that we could include this benefit in our Senate version and that we have retained it in this substitute. I think it will be extremely valuable to the colleges and universities who have really suffered from this hurricane.

One further priority item for me is the additional $1 billion in new markets tax credit authority for the Katrina zone. I fought to get this credit in our Senate version because I am convinced this program works. The program provides access to capital for small businesses through established community development entities. Entities with a significant mission of rebuilding in the hurricane zone may access these additional tax credits in order to help these struggling businesses rebuild. These businesses may not be able to utilize some of the other tax benefits in the bill, but access to capital will help many of them stay in business and stay in the zone.

One last item that I would like to highlight is an employer credit for providing housing for workers and their families. My good friend from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, offered this provision during our floor debate last month. And if I could just take a moment to point out to our colleagues the tremendous work she has done on this bill. She has truly been our compass during these negotiations and has been essential in conveying the true plight of her constituents.

She has told me about the many hurricane victims who still do not have housing in the gulf region. Under her provision, workers and their families receiving housing from their employers could exclude up to $600 a month from their income for tax purposes, plus the business can receive a partial credit for this expense. Business leaders have told us that they simply cannot get back to work unless their workers have housing. The Landrieu housing provision helps them immensely.

Finally, this bill provides that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan may include combat pay when calculating their earned income tax credit. This has been a priority item for our friend from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, who championed this fix for our military families serving in combat last year. We extend the benefit for another year in this substitute and I commend Senator Pryor for his tireless work on behalf of military families.

We have a good bill before us. It has been nearly 4 months. We are set to adjourn the Senate for the year. We need to come together and help those most in need. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation today.

animal racing

As we consider this legislation to provide tax relief to respond to Katrina, it is particularly important that we recognize the impact of the hurricane on those struggling working families who are eligible for the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. I am particularly concerned that the disruptions and displacement affecting these families in both their jobs and their homes may make it more difficult for them to receive these critical tax credits to which they are legally entitled--credits which they need more than ever. Some families will become eligible for these credits for the first time, yet may not be aware of these programs let alone how to apply for them. In addition, we have seen a tremendous outpouring of support for those hit by Katrina from families and friends of the victims, often at great cost. These relatives and friends may also qualify for assistance but find it more difficult to meet all the normal requirements.

For example, there are many families who have taken in nonrelative children displaced by the hurricane. They are essentially foster parents but may not be considered as such under current law. Due to the need to act quickly in response to Katrina, these foster children will not have been formally placed by an authorized agency but under current rules, such individuals could not claim these children for the EITC or the child tax credit. This would be true even if they continued to care for the children for more than 6 months in 2006 and thus meet the qualifying child residency requirement.

The only potential relief such individuals have is the $500 additional exemption in 2005 for housing a Katrina survivor more than 60 days provided in the Hurricane Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act, HKTRA. However, this is a

minimal support for a family taking in a child as a member of the family. In addition, the exemption is unavailable to low-income families with no income tax liability.

Taxpayers caring for such children may ultimately seek to formalize the arrangement with an authorized agency during 2006, but a placement decision may not be reached until later in the year. If only the time in residence with a child after the placement decision is considered for the purposes of meeting the residency test, the taxpayer may be unable to meet that test for the EITC and CTC. Some low-income taxpayers, unaware of the EITC or CTC rules, may simply continue to care for the child in their family and not pursue a formal arrangement until a later point and yet may be counting on the income from these credits.

Clearly the IRS needs to address this problem.

I wholeheartedly agree with my friend from Iowa.

I would like to raise another concern regarding these tax credits and the Katrina families.

As we approach the next filing season, there are so many families affected by the hurricane who previously received the EITC and the CTC but now face significant confusion about whether they will get the credit and how much they will receive. And, of course, some of the normal sources of taxpayer assistance in the gulf are not available now. Accordingly, it is exceedingly important the IRS do everything it can to maximize information and assistance provided to the public to help those eligible secure these credits.

While we wrote section 406 and section 407 of the Hurricane Tax relief bill to help eligible hurricane survivors receive the benefits of the EITC and CTC, it is really up to the IRS to effectively inform taxpayers and the tax preparation community of how the provisions are being implemented. In particular, section 407 provides that the IRS ``. . . may make such adjustments in the application of the internal revenue laws as may be necessary to ensure that taxpayers do not lose any deduction or credit or experience a change of filing status by reason of temporary relocations by reason of Hurricane Katrina.''

I understand that the IRS is working to decide how this ``adjustment authority'' will be implemented and is preparing a new Publication 4492. However, low-income taxpayers and those who assist them in the preparation of their 2005 tax returns will need to understand the nature and limits of the adjustments IRS is willing to make so that returns are prepared properly. It will take a very thorough and comprehensive public education program to make sure that nontechnical information is made available through various means to help educate the public and those who help prepare tax returns. I am very concerned that the IRS take every possible step it can to make sure eligible low- income working families affected by Katrina know about special temporary adjustments to these credits and what they need to do to ensure they receive these credits.

I thank the Chairman and join in his recommendations to the IRS.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Combat Meth Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Combat Meth Act because it addresses a problem that impacts every aspect of our society. I was excited when the Combat Meth Act was included as part of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriation bill this year, and I was extremely disappointed that it wasn't included in the final conference report. Though Senator Leahy requested that the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act be presented to the Senate as a freestanding bill, it is unfortunately included at the end of the PATRIOT Act.

So much has been said on the PATRIOT Act's civil liberty provisions, yet little has been said about the very important section of the conference report, the Combat Meth Act.

The methamphetamine problem in this country needs attention. Methamphetamine abuse has increased dramatically in recent years, reaching all comers of the United States. It is a very large problem in the State of Montana.

That is why I was pleased when the Senate gave methamphetamine the attention it deserved. And we worked together to produce a bipartisan bill.

The Senate Combat Meth Act provided greater regulations for methamphetamine, just what law enforcement officers asked us for. The Senate bill focused on regulation, monitoring, treatment, and prevention.

The conference report does not provide the same provisions we negotiated in the Senate for the Combat Meth Act. Though I support the ideas behind many sections of the conference report, including the restrictions on the allowable quantity purchasable, the requirement for over-the-counter medicines containing pseudoephedrine to be sold by a licensed pharmacist, and the establishment of a log book for these products, I still do not believe we have done enough to solve the methamphetamine problem.

In addition, the conference report changed the drug kingpin statute and lowered the eligibility thresholds for death sentences and mandatory life sentences. This is not what we need most. We need to work more on prevention.

Though I voted to oppose cloture on the PATRIOT Act, I support the Combat Meth Act and the need for legislation on this important issue. We must help solve the methamphetamine problem. Law enforcement officers depend on us. Methamphetamine addicts depend on us. And children of methamphetamine users depend on us to work together to bring this piece of legislation to the floor again.

I will work with my colleagues to make sure methamphetamine is a high priority issue when we come back after the New Year.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am here to introduce bill to provide a 6-month extension of the Nation's largely successful welfare program. It is known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, or

Mr. President, I am here to introduce bill to provide a 6-month extension of the Nation's largely successful welfare program. It is known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, or

I thank the Chair

(The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of S. 2107 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Oklahoma and Idaho for their courtesy. There were three of us scheduled to speak at the same time. Obviously, that is very difficult to do. These two Senators graciously allowed me to go ahead. I thank them both.