Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I recognize American Legion Auxiliary Unit 70 out of Judith Gap, MT. Judith Gap is a small town in central Montana with less than 200 residents, but they have a vibrant community where the American Legion plays a key role. The legion supports a whole host of activities, from supporting veterans throughout Montana to throwing local poppy-themed dinners. They provide a great deal for the area, and I ask unanimous consent that the full activities record of American Legion Auxiliary Unit 70 of Judith Gap, MT, be printed in the Record.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I would like to thank the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from North Dakota for their comments on renewable energy and climate change. That is definitely an issue I hope we take up sooner rather than later, and hopefully we will have some commonsense solutions to the problem so we can move this country forward both in the area of reducing our effects on climate but also economically because it is a tremendous opportunity with the right piece of legislation. I rise today to urge the inclusion of the JAG/Byrne grant funding in the emergency supplemental that we will consider in the coming weeks. A week ago, I organized a summit of drugbuster law enforcement in my home State of Montana. I asked all of the leaders of Montana's drug task forces to come together to talk about Federal funding. It is a critically important issue. Many of them drove hundreds of miles across the State in a spring blizzard to take part in this summit. The drug task forces are made up of dedicated law enforcement officers from every part of Montana: sheriffs' deputies, narcotics officers, local and State police, and undercover agents. They work together across jurisdictions to bust drug smugglers, as well as those who grow or manufacture instate. Our State of Montana has 56 counties. There are, of course, a lot of different regions that deal with the task forces, that deal with catching the drug manufacturers and smugglers. It is critically important that these folks work together. There is cause for concern because the President proposes slashing $350 million from the drug task forces nationwide. If that happens, Montana will lose a staggering 70 percent of its national drug fighting money for the upcoming year, and the task forces would probably have to lay off 27 agents, leaving only 22 agents to battle drugs statewide. In a State the size of Montana that is impossible. We should not let that happen. We should find a way to fund these drug task forces in this supplemental, this spending bill that we are going to be considering in a few weeks. If we do not, these cuts will cripple the progress that we have made up to now in the war on drugs in rural States such as the State of Montana. These drug task forces are success stories. The officers who are on the front lines keep drugs, the drug smugglers, and the drug dealers off our streets. They make our communities safer; they reduce crime, and they make a place like Montana a whole lot safer to live and raise a family. These drug busters work together to get the job done. Because drugs are not limited by borders, these tasks forces rely on Federal funding to facilitate the cooperation across the many jurisdictions of Montana, and it works. Last weekend, folks picking up some trash in Havre, MT, stumbled across a dumped meth lab. They called the police, and within minutes the task force agents were there on the scene to help clean it up and keep the community safe. A week ago Monday I heard about a drug operation busted in a remote part of southeastern Montana; so remote, in fact, the task force needed the help of the National Guard helicopter to find it. Officers found 3 pounds of methamphetamine. Last summer, the Northwest Montana Drug Task Force investigated a case that took them across State lines to Salt Lake City, UT. In the end, they seized 2 pounds of cocaine. They took 20 illegal weapons off the streets, and they say they couldn't have done it without their ability to work across jurisdictional lines and work together. For example, one task force busted a meth lab in a home. Through surveillance, they knew children were present. They took the precautions not to put the children in any more danger. When the bust was made, one child inside tested positive for meth because he was living in a house where they were cooking meth. Even his toys were covered with meth resin. This case set the standard for the way officers deal with and protect children in harm's way. In only 1 year, Montana'a drug task forces rescued 84 children from homes where they were being exposed to drugs and drug dealers. To me, restoring this funding is a no-brainer. As one of the officers put it: We will end up spending much more money in the future if we have to play catchup. During the summit last week in Montana, officers told me again and again that without Federal funding our small communities will be devastated. Our children will be exposed to more drugs and, therefore, more crime, and families will be torn apart. I hope we can all work together to restore this funding. Montana and the Nation cannot afford to do otherwise. Americans deserve better. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Feingold, Harkin and Klobuchar in introducing a bill that would significantly increase voter participation. The Election Day Registration Act of 2008, EDR, would allow all eligible citizens to register to vote in federal elections on Election Day. Studies have shown a strong increase in voter turnout in those States who have EDR. In 2004, 73.8 percent of all eligible voters in EDR states voted, compared with 60.2 percent of eligible voters in states without EDR--a difference of 13.6 percentage points. The top four States for turnout in 2004 had EDR--Minnesota 78 percent, Wisconsin 75 percent, Maine 73 percent, and New Hampshire 71 percent. The fifth highest state was Oregon--the universal vote-by-mail state. Even more compelling, the turnout is higher even when controlling for competitiveness--in terms of voter participation, ``safe'' states with EDR significantly outperformed ``safe'' states without EDR. Voter participation in those ``Battleground'' States with EDR was significantly higher than in those ``battleground'' states without EDR. High voter participation is a fundamental part of a healthy democracy. This year we have seen record numbers of voters participating in the presidential primaries. The implementation of EDR for federal elections would build upon this momentum. Montana is expecting record turnout for our presidential primary on June 3rd. EDR permits eligible citizens to register and vote on Election Day. There are currently 9 states that have some form of EDR: Minnesota, Maine, Wisconsin, Idaho, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Iowa, North Carolina and of course my home state of Montana. Iowa adopted EDR in March 2007 and North Carolina has implemented Same Day Registration at early voting sites. While the version in North Carolina isn't complete EDR, it is a strong move for increased access to the democratic process. There is nationwide interest in EDR. Last year, 21 States had bills before their legislature to implement, or begin feasibility studies in support of, EDR. In my home state of Montana we have had Election Day Registration. Montana adopted EDR in 2005 while I was president of the Montana state senate. Montana's version is a little different from EDR in Wisconsin and Minnesota--in Montana, the voter registers, election day, at the county courthouse rather than at the polling place. Whether it is at the polling place or the courthouse, the important fundamentals of access are maintained. With EDR, the use of and reliance upon provisional ballots would be minimized. Provisional ballots are useful and valuable tools, however with EDR, the costly validation process that takes place after election day could be avoided, as eligibility considerations could be made on election day and the voter would then use a standard ballot. EDR streamlines the administrative process and makes sure that votes are counted. Enactment of EDR would be a major step in the right direction towards inclusive and fully participatory elections. It's clear that people are more likely to vote when they know their votes will be counted. EDR has proven track record of increasing participation, and those concerns raised have been largely disproven or are easily addressed. In the end EDR allows more Americans to do that which is most fundamental to the democracy we love and the freedom we, as Americans, stand for--vote. My cosponsors and I think this Election Day Registration Act of 2008 is necessary to strengthen our democracy. We welcome our fellow senators to support this important legislation.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Feingold, Harkin and Klobuchar in introducing a bill that would significantly increase voter participation. The Election Day Registration Act of 2008, EDR, would allow all eligible citizens to register to vote in federal elections on Election Day. Studies have shown a strong increase in voter turnout in those States who have EDR. In 2004, 73.8 percent of all eligible voters in EDR states voted, compared with 60.2 percent of eligible voters in states without EDR--a difference of 13.6 percentage points. The top four States for turnout in 2004 had EDR--Minnesota 78 percent, Wisconsin 75 percent, Maine 73 percent, and New Hampshire 71 percent. The fifth highest state was Oregon--the universal vote-by-mail state. Even more compelling, the turnout is higher even when controlling for competitiveness--in terms of voter participation, ``safe'' states with EDR significantly outperformed ``safe'' states without EDR. Voter participation in those ``Battleground'' States with EDR was significantly higher than in those ``battleground'' states without EDR. High voter participation is a fundamental part of a healthy democracy. This year we have seen record numbers of voters participating in the presidential primaries. The implementation of EDR for federal elections would build upon this momentum. Montana is expecting record turnout for our presidential primary on June 3rd. EDR permits eligible citizens to register and vote on Election Day. There are currently 9 states that have some form of EDR: Minnesota, Maine, Wisconsin, Idaho, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Iowa, North Carolina and of course my home state of Montana. Iowa adopted EDR in March 2007 and North Carolina has implemented Same Day Registration at early voting sites. While the version in North Carolina isn't complete EDR, it is a strong move for increased access to the democratic process. There is nationwide interest in EDR. Last year, 21 States had bills before their legislature to implement, or begin feasibility studies in support of, EDR. In my home state of Montana we have had Election Day Registration. Montana adopted EDR in 2005 while I was president of the Montana state senate. Montana's version is a little different from EDR in Wisconsin and Minnesota--in Montana, the voter registers, election day, at the county courthouse rather than at the polling place. Whether it is at the polling place or the courthouse, the important fundamentals of access are maintained. With EDR, the use of and reliance upon provisional ballots would be minimized. Provisional ballots are useful and valuable tools, however with EDR, the costly validation process that takes place after election day could be avoided, as eligibility considerations could be made on election day and the voter would then use a standard ballot. EDR streamlines the administrative process and makes sure that votes are counted. Enactment of EDR would be a major step in the right direction towards inclusive and fully participatory elections. It's clear that people are more likely to vote when they know their votes will be counted. EDR has proven track record of increasing participation, and those concerns raised have been largely disproven or are easily addressed. In the end EDR allows more Americans to do that which is most fundamental to the democracy we love and the freedom we, as Americans, stand for--vote. My cosponsors and I think this Election Day Registration Act of 2008 is necessary to strengthen our democracy. We welcome our fellow senators to support this important legislation.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I wish to commend Chairman Akaka on the legislation that was passed in the Senate earlier today, S. 1315. This bill makes a number of commonsense improvements to the benefits packages we offer America's veterans. I am pleased to have voted for this bill as it came out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I am also pleased to have supported it on the floor today. It is long past due to give our disabled veterans the ability to purchase affordable life insurance. That is what this bill does. It provides up to $50,000 in life insurance for any veteran younger than the age of 65 who has a service-connected disability. The bill also adds a host of new benefits to help critically injured service men and women get their households refurbished if they become disabled. That can mean putting in wheelchair ramps, remodeling a kitchen or a bathroom, and countless other chores. Again, it is a small measure, but for a soldier who has lost an arm or a leg or a marine who has suffered severe burns, it means the world. It is long past time to increase burial benefits to help families deal with the growing costs of providing a final resting place for their veteran loved ones. This bill does that by authorizing double the current allowance for the burial of a veteran who dies from a service- connected disability to $4,000. It also triples the $300 benefit for nonservice connected disabilities. With the average funeral cost now around $6,000, this is a small gesture to the loved ones of our veterans, but it matters a great deal. At a time of record national debt and chronic annual budget deficits, I am particularly pleased this bill is deficit-neutral. It does not increase taxes. With all the good in the bill, it is little wonder the Veterans' Benefit Enhancement Act is supported by every major veterans service organization. This bill passed out of the VA Committee unanimously last summer, and I am pleased by the bipartisan support it got today. We now need to turn our attention to the veterans health care legislation that I am told will follow this bill. Our Nation's veterans deserve nothing less. When our children sign up for military service, whether they do it at a local recruiting office or by going to a service academy or anything in-between, we make a deal with them. We ask them to put their lives on the line. We ask them to serve and to sacrifice at an increasingly difficult pace. We ask them to fight wars. We ask them to keep peace and to keep our Nation free and they go. They go and they do a better job than any other military in the world. In return, we promise that when their service is over, we will care for them and compensate them if they have been injured in their service to our country. With our Nation now at war, we have a great moral obligation to do right by the men and women who serve our country in harm's way. This legislation helps keep the promise to our veterans. One other point I wish to add that relates to what the senator from Michigan and the Senator from Utah talked about. I have only been here for 15 or 16 months, but I will tell my colleagues that one thing I have noticed and one thing that has surprised me over the last year and a quarter is we debate whether to debate all too much. The fact is, whether we agree or disagree on an issue, what is important is we have an opportunity to vote on an issue--to make our stand and vote on an issue. What happened last week was a prime example, where we had a transportation bill--corrections to a transportation bill--and we spent all week because it was being delayed and delayed. I sat in the chair last Thursday night when the majority leader, the Democratic leader, came down to the floor and said: I have to file cloture on this veterans' bill--the one we passed--because I have approached the minority and they have not gotten back to me and I do not want to take the chance of wasting a day. We have work to do here. We have done some good work today, and I hope we can have many more days such as today, where we can vote on legislation that impacts the people of this country. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for protecting American workers from willful pay discrimination. To show my support, I will support cloture on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, H.R. 2831. I appreciate Chairman Kennedy and the bipartisan coalition he has built around this legislation to ensure equal pay for equal work. Every employee deserves to earn the same pay for doing the same work. Our country was founded on the principle that all men and women are created equal. Our workers should be paid equally for doing the same job. As President Kennedy stated when he signed the original Equal Pay Act in 1963, protecting American workers against pay discrimination is ``basic to democracy''. We owe our workers the same protection today that President Kennedy did in the 1960s. Despite our obligation to this issue, our work is far from complete. Forty-five years after he signed that historic piece of bipartisan legislation, American women still only make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes for doing the same work. African-American workers make 18 percent less than white workers for doing the same work and Latinos make 28 percent less for doing the same work. Unfortunately for all of us, American Indians make even less for doing the same work. Congress cannot ignore this kind of discrimination. We have a duty to support this bill and speak out against pay discrimination. This bill will merely restore the law to what it was before the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter. This bill merely states that a pay discrimination claim accrues when a pay decision is made, when an employee is subject to that decision, or at any time they are injured by it. Lilly Ledbetter had worked at Goodyear for 19 years when she discovered she was being paid significantly less than her male counterparts for doing the exact same work. A jury agreed and awarded her $223,776 in back pay, and over $3 million in punitive damages. The United States Supreme Court however, interpreted the law to take away her jury award, saying that the 180-day filing limit had begun way back when her very first paycheck showed lesser pay, nearly 18 years earlier. So because too much time had elapsed the Court said, her claim was invalid. Despite Goodyear's willful wage discrimination, the Court offered her no protection. In fact, it reversed the protection the jury awarded her. We are here today to undo this wrongheaded decision and clarify this law to make it fair to American workers. Opponents will argue that this bill will lead to a flood of litigation, benefiting nobody but trial attorneys. They forget, however, that this bill merely returns the law to how the vast majority of States, including the great State of Montana, interpreted it before the Ledbetter decision. This bill will only change the way courts interpret the law in 7 States. Opponents will also argue that this bill will punish businesses for acts of discrimination in some cases, decades ago, before management and corporate culture changed. The argument is hollow, however, because the bill contains a provision to limit claims filed to a 2-year maximum. In the spirit of negotiation, proponents had to limit potential awards. Take Lilly Ledbetter's case, for example. If this law would have been in effect for her, 16 out of the 18 years that she suffered pay discrimination would still go unpunished. This bill is not perfect. We still have a long ways to go to protect American workers from pay discrimination. But this bill is a step in the right direction and the time is now. The House of Representatives passed this important bill last July, and It is time for this body to do the same. President Kennedy was absolutely right to support the Equal Pay Act in 1963. Forty-five years later, this bill will ensure that we turn the clock forward, not backward, on pay discrimination. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise to speak on a matter that has been of great concern this week to not only the Governor of the State of Montana and Senator Baucus, but to my colleagues from the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell and Senator Murray. Four Americans were detained last weekend in Nigeria. They have been held in Nigeria until today. Today they were released. It is an enormous relief to all of us and particularly to those families, that Sandy Cioffi, Tammi Sims, Clifford Worsham, and Sean Porter will soon be reunited with their loved ones. Nigeria's State Security Service has been overseeing their custody since Saturday afternoon, more than 100 hours. They were charged with no crime. They were in the country legally. They did nothing wrong. So we worked closely to try to get these folks released, and it did happen. It is particularly of importance to me because one of the people who was detained is a lady by the name of Tammi Sims. Tammi is from Joplin, MT, which is a stone's throw away from my hometown. I have been in regular contact with her family since last weekend, and they have been worried sick. But now we have reason for hope. We will not be celebrating, however, until Tammi is reunited and the others are reunited with their families here in the United States. We will continue to keep our fingers crossed, and Sharla and I will continue to pray for Tammi and the rest of the group until they are back here on American soil. I do, however, want to take a minute to thank the consular affairs section of the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, who were so very helpful in getting information about these individuals back to my office and to the families of those folks. I also thank the dedicated Foreign Service officers of the State Department. They do this kind of work all over the world, probably every day, but it is not until one of your own is in need of assistance that you appreciate their work, and I do. I also thank some of my other colleagues, including Senator Feingold, Senator Brown, who also expressed support for these folks. I thank them for that. This is a good day, and hopefully those folks will be back in their home country very soon with their families. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TESTER. I certainly appreciate hearing the debate on the amendments of the technical corrections of the highway bill. I want to take a little detour for a moment. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act, which Senator Barrasso and I are introducing today. This program is a key step now that wolves will be delisted in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. The bill will help reduce livestock losses due to wolves and help our ranchers who bear the financial burden of losses due to wolves. On March 28, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the gray wolves in the northern Rockies from the endangered species list. Wolves have, over the last few years, experienced a remarkable recovery in the northern Rockies. They, in fact, have exceeded their population goals put in place when they were reintroduced. I applaud the Fish and Wildlife Service for their decision to turn the management over to the States, such as Montana, because Montana is ready. Each State in our region has developed its own management plan that will treat wolves like other wildlife and keep their numbers at approved levels. Today, tourists come to Yellowstone to see wolves. They are a symbol of the wildness of our region. But wolves also need to eat, and they kill animals in the process--some wild, some domestic. In the case of the domestic livestock, such as cattle and sheep, that costs producers time and money and reduces profitability. Our States are taking action by initiating new programs that will try to prevent wolf kills by improved fencing, grazing practices, using guard dogs, and other means. They will also be compensating producers for the losses due to wolves. Yesterday, Montana's program began accepting claims. Since the Federal Government reintroduced wolves to the northern Rockies, it only makes sense for the Fish and Wildlife Service to assist States in managing wolves even after the delisting. Today, Senator Barrasso and I are introducing the Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act to provide the assistance States need in managing wolves in the future. This program strikes the balance the public demands. It accepts the presence of wolves, but it also supports our livestock industry which is affected by that reintroduction of the wolves. If wolves are a public asset deserving of reintroduction, the Federal Government ought to be a player at the table to mitigate their costs. I encourage my colleagues to take a look at this issue--it is an important one--particularly those colleagues from the Great Lakes region and the Southwest who face similar problems.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act, which Senator Barrasso and I are introducing today. This program is a key step now that wolves will be delisted in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. The bill will help reduce livestock losses due to wolves and help our ranchers who bear the financial burden of losses due to wolves. On March 28, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the gray wolves in the northern Rockies from the endangered species list. Wolves have, over the last few years, experienced a remarkable recovery in the northern Rockies. They, in fact, have exceeded their population goals put in place when they were reintroduced. I applaud the Fish and Wildlife Service for their decision to turn the management over to the States, such as Montana, because Montana is ready. Each State in our region has developed its own management plan that will treat wolves like other wildlife and keep their numbers at approved levels. Today, tourists come to Yellowstone to see wolves. They are a symbol of the wildness of our region. But wolves also need to eat, and they kill animals in the process--some wild, some domestic. In the case of the domestic livestock, such as cattle and sheep, that costs producers time and money and reduces profitability. Our States are taking action by initiating new programs that will try to prevent wolf kills by improved fencing, grazing practices, using guard dogs, and other means. They will also be compensating producers for the losses due to wolves. Yesterday, Montana's program began accepting claims. Since the Federal Government reintroduced wolves to the northern Rockies, it only makes sense for the Fish and Wildlife Service to assist States in managing wolves even after the delisting. Today, Senator Barrasso and I are introducing the Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act to provide the assistance States need in managing wolves in the future. This program strikes the balance the public demands. It accepts the presence of wolves, but it also supports our livestock industry which is affected by that reintroduction of the wolves. If wolves are a public asset deserving of reintroduction, the Federal Government ought to be a player at the table to mitigate their costs. I encourage my colleagues to take a look at this issue--it is an important one--particularly those colleagues from the Great Lakes region and the Southwest who face similar problems.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the recent acquisition of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase and the events that caused the downfall of one of our largest investment banks and its eventual merger with JPMorgan Chase. When I first learned of the merger, I urged Chairman Dodd to hold a hearing. Last week, the Banking Committee began to exercise its much- needed oversight role on this deal. The hearing served to shine a spotlight on the actions of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. Over the past 2 weeks, we have learned much about the events that led up to Bear Stearns demise and how the government interceded to save it. Unfortunately, some of the accounts have raised more questions than answers. Congress must continue to look into this deal and possible illegal behavior. Mr. President, I am calling on the proper law enforcement authorities to investigate whether illegal insider trading may have fueled Bear Stearns' downfall. In the days, hours and, ultimately, minutes before news of Bear Stearns became public, it appears trading in Bear Stearns' stock jumped substantially. Volume trading in shares of Bear Stearns jumped from just over 5 million shares on the first day of trading in March to an astronomical 186,986,900 shares on March 14--2 days before the Fed authorized the $29 billion bailout. Let me say that one more time. Volume trading in shares of Bear Stearns jumped from just over 5 million shares on the first day of trading in March to an astronomical 186,986,900 shares on Friday, March 14. In fact, the previous high in volume over the last year was just over 28 million shares. Yet on March 14, shares of Bear Stearns were traded nearly 187 million times. They were traded at nearly 187 million times. It is uncertain whether or not rampant fears of the company's demise led to that spike or whether those looking to make a buck engaged in illegal market manipulation. During the hearing last Thursday, I asked SEC Chairman Cox if he was aware of any evidence suggesting that speculators had bet heavily that Bear Stearns' share price would fall, known on Wall Street as ``short selling.'' Chairman Cox responded: ``I'm a little bit constrained because the SEC is in the law enforcement business.'' He stated that SEC pursues insider trading aggressively and said his agency was mulling ``several law enforcement matters'' that had not been filed in any U.S. court. Today, I will be sending this letter to Chairman Cox, as well as Attorney General Mukasey, calling on them to immediately and thoroughly investigate the role that short-selling played in the events surrounding Bear Stearns' collapse. Market manipulation is illegal and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am asking that Chairman Cox and Attorney General Mukasey to respond to me and the Senate Banking Committee with a report as early as possible about this investigation. The American taxpayers have been asked to carry the burden of a $29 billion loan that is linked to possibly risky mortgage backed securities. In fact, JPMorgan Chase would not have agreed to acquire Bear Stearns had the government not shared the risk. I want to repeat that one more time--one of the world's largest and most respected investment banks would not carry the full risk without government aid. And we are supposed to believe on blind faith that the investment is safe and will be repaid in full? Knowing the consequences and the burden is being carried not only by shareholders, but by average taxpayers who live paycheck-to-paycheck, we must learn if the Federal Reserve acted properly. We must be certain that investors did not violate laws barring speculators from engaging in market manipulation or insider trading. We must be certain that the taxpayers did not post a preemptive bailout to cover massive short selling for those to make money in the markets. I rose on the floor last week to raise my concern for the families in Montana and the rest of the country who work hard and play by the rules; yet, can't find a decent place to live that they can afford. And for communities throughout rural America where opportunity is slipping away because of the failure of the national leadership to invest in basic infrastructure that connects us to one another. These families cannot be asked to cover what some are calling a Government bailout when they are having hard time filling their truck with diesel and to save for their kid's college fund. I look forward to hearing back from the SEC and Department of Justice. I hope they tell me that it was fear and nothing but market dynamics and not illegal trading. I hope they will tell me that the $29 billion loan was justified and was a one-time act to prevent an economic meltdown. But if there was insider trading and market manipulation, the proper law enforcement authorities of the U.S. government must respond with appropriate action and prosecute any wrong-doing to the fullest extent of the law. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to call on the Senate to take action on a bipartisan housing opportunity bill. I know that as we speak, Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby are working hard on a compromise bill. It is about time that our national leadership went to bat for struggling working families instead of just looking out for the fat cats. I also commend the leadership of Senator Reid and Senator McConnell for agreeing to allow Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby to roll up their sleeves and work together to address some of the problems that now exist in our Nation's housing market. Since I first joined the Senate last year, I have noticed that far too often the people's business falls victim to partisan politics. So I appreciate the spirit of cooperation that has resulted in the agreement to move to debate on an issue on the forefront of so many Americans' minds. We need to debate these issues and shine a spotlight on the actions of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department in recent weeks. What we have seen recently breaks new ground and sets precedents that will be followed for years to come. We need to look closely at the details and make sure this is the right track we are taking. Folks throughout Montana are talking about these issues because they feel the impact in their daily lives. Working families struggle to afford quality housing and pay for gas that is $3-plus a gallon and diesel that is $4 a gallon and struggle to pay for medical costs, whether in the form of excessive insurance premiums or the cost of sickness due to no insurance or too high deductibles. Folks paying $4 for a box of cereal know all too well that the Government is not there to bail them out when times get tough. Just the other day, I spoke to a packed room in Kalispell, MT, at a forum on financial investments. This was the day after the announcement of JPMorgan Chase's acquisition of Bear Stearns. The very first question asked was from a local man who wanted to know why the Government felt it necessary to risk nearly $30 billion to aid one of Wall Street's largest banks but families or farmers or small businesses in the same situation were simply out of luck. His point hit home with me, and it pointed out the fact that we, the Government, need to address the problems that plague the housing market. I am very pleased that Chairman Dodd is holding a hearing on this deal tomorrow to address the bailout of Bear Stearns, a hearing I called for when I was talking to those Montanans in Kalispell. Concerns about this issue are growing and getting louder in my State of Montana, which many local economists have noted is resistant to the immediate effects of many national economic trends. We are all very aware of the housing crisis that is rippling across this country, affecting homeowners and the economy as a whole. To date, we have been lucky. Montana has not fared as poorly as many of the other States which have seen whole communities torn apart by foreclosure after foreclosure, hurting families and lowering property values. But we are still concerned. I am concerned for the families in Bozeman, MT, who work hard and play by the rules, yet can't find a decent place to live that they can afford. I am concerned for the workers in Bonner, MT, who lost their jobs at the Stimson lumber mill because the collapse of the housing market has depressed the demand for lumber. I am concerned for communities throughout rural America where opportunity is slipping away because of the failure of our national leadership to invest in basic infrastructure that connects us to one another. The current housing market is widely considered to be the worst since the Great Depression. It has spread from home prices to student loans, to municipal bonds, to commodities, and to virtually every sector of the economy. Unfortunately, the administration has put a larger priority in taking care of Wall Street's big bankers than the millions of folks who are struggling to pay the bills, make their mortgages, save for their children's college tuition, or invest some money for a secure retirement, and that needs to change. We must take action to strengthen the economy for all Americans and prevent this crisis from spreading. The administration needs to quickly nominate a new Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, one who is responsive to the needs of average Americans, not another who is tainted by corruption and cronyism. The American people deserve honorable public servants tending to the public business to help navigate the economy out of this murky situation. We need to help borrowers who were steered into abusive loans but not bail out speculators who were looking for a quick buck and got burned by the changing marketplace. I do not believe in a government bailout of the undeserving, but I do believe in aiding those families who face unfair foreclosures through no fault of their own. This Congress must pass legislation that can make that distinction and help families and communities that have been adversely affected by this slowing economy. I am very pleased that at least we are working on a bipartisan agreement for this housing bill. I look forward to working with Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby to pass a good bill that will do right by working families in Montana and throughout America. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the majority leader to be recognized at 12:30 today be modified for the majority leader to be recognized at 2 p.m. today.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I thank the ranking member of the committee. Today I rise in strong support of the Indian health care program. The reason this bill is on the floor right now is due to the hard work of our chairman and ranking member which has been exhibited here in the last few minutes. They know how important this bill is. I express my appreciation to Senator Dorgan and Senator Murkowski for all of their hard work. Since arriving in Washington a little more than a year ago, I have been meeting with leaders throughout Indian country, and one aspect is clear: The challenges that face Indian country are large. I tell tribal leaders that despite all of the good intentions, there is no way Congress can solve all of their problems this year. As I began my tenure on the Indian Affairs Committee, I asked my friends in Indian country to share with me their top priorities. I have met with representatives and leaders from each of the seven reservations in Montana multiple times, and every time they point out to me that the most important issue is health care or the lack of it. Why is it such a priority? Let's consider a few examples. Now 5 years old, a small girl from the Crow tribe was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer in her eye. The condition required that her right eye be surgically removed. When doctors originally removed it in October of 2001, they fitted her with a prosthetic eye with the understanding that every few years, she would need a new prosthesis as she grew. Because doctors had already taken her eye, and because the wrong size prosthetic eye wouldn't immediately threaten her life when she needed a new eye, her case failed to meet medical priority criteria for contract Indian Health Services, which is life or limb. Her family was left with two options: She goes without the new prosthesis, leading to permanent disfigurement or raise $3,000, which is not an easy task for a struggling family on Montana's economically depressed reservations. Here is another example of the critical needs of the Indian health care system. A 35-year-old Montana woman was diagnosed with a heart condition that led to dramatic heart failure. Her heart lost its ability to pump blood adequately and she could hardly move without becoming short of breath. She needed a new heart. She was referred to the Mayo Clinic where she received special cardiology care and was put on a list for a heart transplant. Thanks to close monitoring and the use of many medications and a permanent pacemaker, her condition stabilized and her ability to function improved a bit. However, due to lack of funding in the Indian Health Service, her ongoing visits with the cardiologist, not to mention the heart transplant, were no longer covered. Without this followup, her prospects for survival are grim. I could go on and on. There are thousands of examples of how the Indian health care system has failed. After I asked tribal folks about their priorities, I asked what we can do in the Senate to improve Indian health care. The response is unanimous and overwhelming. They tell me to start with the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and do it now. This reauthorization is long overdue. The last comprehensive authorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act was 16 years ago, in 1992. The disparity in the quality of health care provided to Native Americans is real, and it is disturbing. The Indian Health Service, or IHS, reports that members of the 560 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their descendants are eligible for IHS services. This agency, within the Department of Health and Human Services, is supposed to provide comprehensive health care for approximately 1.8 million of the Nation's estimated 3.3 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. Its annual appropriation is $3 billion--$3 billion. Keep that number in mind as we consider the facts: Approximately 55 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives living in the United States rely on IHS to provide access to health services in 49 hospitals and nearly 600 other facilities. American Indians and Alaska Natives die at higher rates from a myriad of things more than regular Americans do: tuberculosis, 600 percent higher; diabetes, nearly 200 percent higher; and the list goes on and on and on. American Indians and Alaska Natives born today have a life expectancy that is lower than all other races in the United States. This lower life expectancy is due, in part, to the disproportionate disease burden that exists in Indian country. It is suggested that the IHS-appropriated funding provides 55 percent of the necessary Federal funding to assure mainstream personal health care services to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Let me repeat that: IHS provides only 55 percent of the funding necessary to meet the health care needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in that IHS system. So now you can see why passing this bill is so critically important to improving health care in Indian country. This legislation will help the Indian Health Service facilities become up to date. It will create programs to address behavioral and mental health issues that have been severely neglected. It will begin to address the disturbing disparities between the health status of American Indians and the general U.S. population. This legislation authorizes appropriations necessary to increase the availability of health care, develop new approaches to health care delivery, improve the flexibility of the Indian health care service, and promote the sovereignty of American Indian tribes. Now we must start funding Indian health care at levels authorized in this bill. Don't think that failing to adequately fund Indian health care is a budget savings. Without proper funding of this program, the cost will shift to our emergency rooms and our already overburdened hospitals. Make no mistake about it, we will all pay for the health care of our citizens, but we will pay a premium if we choose not to do the right thing today and fully fund this program. There is another reason why we need to pass this bill. The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to Native American Indians, a legally binding trust responsibility. As many in this body know, this bill has made it to the Senate floor in previous years and failed. The managers of this bill this year have addressed a few remaining concerns and we have another chance to pass it today. The bill before us is not perfect, but it represents a good compromise bill. At the end of the day, this legislation represents an historic opportunity to make an incredible difference in the lives of Americans who need it most. This problem will not go away without our action. The longer we wait, the worse the problem becomes. The longer we wait, the more expensive the problem becomes. By passing this important bill, we take a critical step toward improving Indian health care and thus fulfilling our trust responsibility to American Indians. I hope this bill passes and passes quickly today. I hope it doesn't get bogged down in amendments that are important but have no connection to Indian health care. I ask my comrades here in the Senate to vote yes for this critical legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to encourage law enforcement in Indian country--at the local, State, and Federal level--to work together to combat methamphetamine issues. It encourages local, State, and Federal police to enter into memorandums of understanding with tribal law enforcement to pool resources to fight meth addiction. It does not require it; it just encourages it. All four law enforcement entities should collaborate to ensure that all can be done to beat back the meth problems that plague Indian country. Methamphetamine abuse is an American problem. It infiltrates and devastates communities across the country. Unfortunately, it is a problem that disproportionately impacts tribal communities. American Indians now experience the highest meth usage rates of any ethnic group. I will give one example. American Indians use methamphetamines 17 times higher than African Americans. The list goes on and on. They are the highest meth usage ethnic group. Beyond the high rate of meth use among American Indians, Alaska natives, and native Hawaiians nationwide, individual Indian tries have been struggling with the impact of meth use on their communities. For example, on the Northern Cheyenne reservation in Montana in 2005, 16 out of 64 babies, or 25 percent, were born to meth-addicted mothers. This number has increased in 2006. We must do everything possible to address this epidemic and protect our children from this scourge of modern society. In hearings before the Indian Affairs Committee, we heard testimony about Mexican drug cartels targeting rural reservations. They are targeting these vulnerable areas both for the sale of meth and for distribution hubs. Drug smugglers target Indian communities for several reasons: the complex nature of their criminal jurisdiction on Indian reservations and because tribal police forces have been historically underfunded and understaffed. This is a big problem. It is a huge problem in Indian country. We need to encourage Indian tribes, Federal police, local police to sign memorandums of understanding by each of these four different entities--Indian government, State government, local government, and Federal law enforcement agencies. These memorandums will identify specific law enforcement activity and establish exactly what each agency is responsible for. The feedback we hear is that the memorandums that are in place are working and that the agencies participating in these agreements report a significant increase in communication and a decrease in traffic. This amendment simply asks law enforcement and agencies at every level to work together to beat the meth problem and improve quality of life in Indian country. By signing memorandums of understanding, our communities will be better prepared to tackle this meth problem. At the same time we foster Indian self-determination and strengthen government-to-government relationships. The amendment will improve Indian country and, in effect, every community in this country. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment.

Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. TESTER. I send amendment No. 4020 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. TESTER. I thank the chairman of the committee as well as the ranking member for their support. Anything we can do to help limit the impact of methamphetamine in Indian country and throughout society is a step in the right direction. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I consume apply against the Republican time.