Floor Statements

Mr. President, due to mechanical trouble that delayed my travel to the Senate on March 15, 2010, I regret I was unable to make the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the legislative vehicle of the HIRE Act. If present I would have voted aye.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge the immediate confirmation of Michael Punke to be the U.S. Ambassador to the World Trade Organization.

The United States has been without an ambassador for more than 6 months because one Republican Senator has been holding up his nomination for no good reason. This is another example of standing in the way of doing what is right for our country.

Michael Punke is well qualified. He is ready to serve. He happens to be from Montana. Michael's qualifications are as follows: Michael received his undergraduate degree in international affairs from George Washington University. He then attended Cornell Law School where he earned his juris doctorate with a specialization in international legal affairs. He also served as editor in chief of the Cornell International Law Journal.

For 14 years Michael served in government and private practice in Washington, DC. From 1991 to 1992 he acted as international trade counsel to Senator Max Baucus, then-chairman of the Finance Committee's International Trade Subcommittee.

Michael has been fully vetted. He received strong bipartisan support in his Senate Finance Committee hearings, and the Finance Committee unanimously approved his appointment. Let me repeat that. Michael Punke passed out of the Finance Committee with the support of all the Senators on that committee. That means all the Democrats and all the Republicans supported his nomination, including the junior Senator from Kentucky, who continues to hold up his nomination. The reason Senator Bunning is giving for his hold? He wants Canada to repeal parts of the antismoking law that they passed in the Canadian Parliament. I don't think that holds water.

This job is too important to remain open because one Senator has a flimsy policy beef with a foreign country. Common sense has to prevail.

Expanding U.S. exports will help rebuild our economy by creating jobs. Michael Punke is an important part of that goal. Michael will be responsible for promoting and securing U.S. trade interests abroad to create jobs for America's farmers, workers, and businesses right here at home. Our trading partners use his absence as an excuse to stall progress on serious negotiations. Standing in the way is hurting America's businesses and workers who are affected by these very important negotiations.

Michael could be working right now to create jobs for American farmers, workers, and businesses. But, instead, some issue about tobacco in another country is keeping us from moving forward. That is not right.

That is why a broad coalition of America's farmers and businesses have been calling for quick approval of Michael Punke by the Senate. A coalition of 42 food and agriculture groups wrote Senator Reid and Senator McConnell last January to call for Michael's quick confirmation saying:

U.S. food and agriculture exports are under assault in many

markets with trading partners erecting even more barriers in

recent months . . . The longer the delay in confirming Mr.

Punke, the more likely that the U.S. loses exports and jobs.

So if we act today to confirm Michael Punke, the Senate will have done something right now to help create jobs in America. Holding up Michael Punke does just the opposite. For all these reasons--oh, and may I add this guy is one quality individual--I would request we confirm Michael Punke in the Senate, we do it as soon as possible, and confirm him to the position of U.S. ambassador to the World Trade Organization.

Mr. President, I rise to share some news from my hometown of Big Sandy, MT. It is a town of just over 700 folks. That means in Montana, it is a Class C town. In Montana, Class C basketball isn't just a tradition, it is a way of life. For a lot of Montanans, the entire year revolves around that basketball season.

Last week, Coach Roy Lackner led his boys--the Big Sandy Pioneers--to the Class C basketball tournament. They fought their way to the championship game on Saturday night and they played another outstanding Class C team in the Power Pirates.

It was one of those games folks will be talking about for years. After a last-second foul, with less than a second on the clock, senior forward Corbin Pearson broke the 49-to-49 tie by sinking both free throws. I was 6 years old the last time Big Sandy boys won a State championship. That was 47 years ago.

So I rise in honor of Coach Lackner, assistant coach Gregg King, and the Big Sandy boys basketball team, including Corbin Pearson, Zac Leader, Blake Brumwell, Taylor Ophus, Colter Darlington, Trevor Lackner, Jeff Zeiger, Scott Drga, Dallas Briese, Kaden Beck, Matt Gullickson, and C.J. Hansen.

I am sharing this good news not just because these young men are from my hometown--although I am very proud of that--I am sharing this news because we can all use a reminder that hard work, working together, and teamwork pays off. Coach Lackner says winning a State championship was a matter of perseverance. It is. The Big Sandy Pioneers persevered. They worked hard as a team. They won their championship, and I congratulate them on that.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, come snow or sunshine--day or night--we are close to sealing the deal to change our country for the better, to finally hold insurance companies accountable, and

to make health care affordable for all folks in this country.

Right now we are all paying far too much for health insurance. Many of us can not get health insurance at all. And even worse, insurance companies don't always live up to their end of the bargain.

Sure, a lot of folks are happy with the health care they have.

Our doctors, nurses and hospitals and medical research are the best in the world.

But when you add it all up, many are paying too much for it. Or nothing for it. Too many lives are lost. Too much money is wasted. And too many folks are falling through the cracks.

They are calling out for help. I have heard their voices. Now I want you to hear their stories. They are ordinary people who stand to lose everything unless we reform our health care system.

I support this health care reform bill because it saves lives. It saves money. It saves Medicare. And it is tough on insurance companies--taking them to task to ensure affordable, fair coverage.

I have a perspective different than most of my friends in the Senate.

I am--and always will be--a third generation Montana farmer. My wife Sharla and I do all the work on our farm. I am the guy sitting on the tractor.

A farmer knows a good year from a bad year. And I have had my share of bad years. In fact, for a few of those years--not long after our first kid was born--Sharla and I had to give up health insurance to make ends meet. We had no other choice but to hope and pray for health and safety.

Thank God our prayers were answered.

Now, I have the honor of serving Montana in the Senate.

But mine is one of the thousands of real Montana families that has been forced to wing it, rather than depend on a health care system that works. And that holds insurance companies accountable.

I know of a woman from Ravalli, MT, who cannot afford health insurance because of her pre-existing condition. She and her husband got letters from the insurance company telling them their premiums were going up, $500, to $600, to $700 per month. Through no fault of her own, her insurance just became too expensive. So she gave up.

This legislation will prevent that sort of nonsense in the insurance industry from happening again. In this bill, a health insurer's participation in the exchanges will depend on its performance.

Insurers that jack up their premiums before the exchanges begin will not be included. That is a powerful incentive to keep premiums affordable.

We all have friends and relatives who aren't fortunate enough to have a job where health insurance is part of the deal. So they do what millions of others are forced to do: they hope and pray they stay healthy.

We have a problem. It is time for a solution using common sense and fiscal responsibility. And that is why I am going to vote for this health care reform bill, so we can save lives, save money, save Medicare. And so we can hold insurance companies accountable, so they don't drop people when they are sick, or drive families into bankruptcy.

Because of tax credits, this bill is good for small businesses. It gives eligible small businesses access to up to 6 years of tax credits. That will help small businesses buy health insurance for their employees.

Because of tough new rules for the insurance industry, it is good for families and kids.

And because of commonsense ideas like cross-State insurance markets, more competition, and more choices, it is good for millions of Americans who--until now--have had to rely on hope and prayers.

If we do not pass this bill, our entire economy could fall apart beyond repair. Right now we are working hard to rebuild our economy, and it is working.

We are creating jobs and investing in the basic infrastructure needed to get our economy back out of the ditch. Fixing our broken health care system is part of that job.

Over the past few years, I have heard from thousands of Montanans telling me about the need to fix health care.

One of them is Roxy Burley. Roxy owns a hair salon in Billings, MT.

She just bought a home. She works hard. But she just can't afford health insurance. So, she says, she is walking a tightrope. Her home and her business are on one side. Her health is on the other side.

If Roxy gets sick, she worries she will lose her home and her business.

In Montana, our economy relies on people like Roxy Burley. We can't afford to have our economy walking a tightrope.

In this bill, Roxy will be protected from losing her home and business. Her annual out of pocket expenses are capped at no more than $5,950 per year.

I want to share another story that hits home for me. It is the story of Mindy Renfro. She lives in Missoula, MT.

Mindy got breast cancer not just once, not just twice, not just three times--four times: Breast cancers, four different cancers.

The same cancer didn't come back. She got a different cancer each time. The first two times, Mindy's insurance paid for her treatment.

The third time, the insurance company called her and said: We are sorry, but we are not going to pay. The underwriter, she says, determined her chances of survival were just too slim, so instead they offered to send a hospice nurse.

Mindy was a single mom in her early 40s, and she was simply not ready to check out. So she asked about her options. She was told if she wanted to start chemo, she would have to come up with more than $100,000 in cash. Her only option was to sell her home. Mindy and her children sold their home, and moved into an apartment. They packed up and moved out of their home so they could sell it and she could start the treatment she needed to stay alive. After many years of trying to repay that debt, Mindy recently declared bankruptcy.

I have heard many stories from folks in Montana who are in the same boat that Mindy is in. This isn't good business. This needs to stop. It is why I support this health care reform bill. I support it because under this bill, Mindy and people like her wouldn't have to declare bankruptcy. She would have had insurance, despite her preexisting condition of being a cancer survivor, and her annual out-of-pocket expenses would have been capped at no more than $5,950 per year, not the $100,000 in cash she needed to start cancer treatment. This bill is strong and decisive and tough on insurance companies so they cannot say, sorry, but no, when you get sick; so they cannot say, sorry, but no, if you have a preexisting condition.

Another story is about former ranchers Dan and Pat Dejong. This picture is of Pat. Dan and Pat used to own a cattle ranch in northwestern Montana. The ranch had been in their family for four generations. Dan and Pat couldn't afford health insurance. Then Dan was diagnosed with cancer. To pay the bills they had to make the painful decision to sell off their ranch.

I am going to tell you, when a piece of land has been in the family for four generations, you develop an attachment to that piece of land. But nonetheless when Dan got cancer, they had to pay the bills. They sold the family ranch. Under this bill, the Dejongs would have had access to subsidies so that they could have afforded health insurance in the first place. They never would have had to sell the ranch to pay the doctors' bills.

I want to read what Pat wrote to me about that experience:

The cancer ravaged Dan's body, but selling our ranch to pay

for medical costs broke his spirit.

Dan Dejong lost his battle with cancer 2 years ago. All his bills were paid, but the ranch that had been in the family for four generations was gone, as well as Dan. After all that, Pat still cannot afford health insurance today.

Under this health care reform bill, getting sick won't force folks such as Dan and Pat Dejong to sell the land that has been in their family for generations. That is because it limits the amount of money you would have to pay out-of-pocket to a rate you can afford based on how much you earn. That means no Americans would have to sell their homes or their family ranches to pay the medical bills.

I know a lot of folks already have health insurance, and they are wondering, how is this going to affect me. Let me be clear: If you like your plan, you get to keep it. If you don't, you can look for a more affordable plan that works best for you and your family. Everyone will have access to affordable health insurance. Right now those with health insurance are subsidizing those without.

The other day I struck up a conversation with a trucker back in Montana who told me: I don't need insurance. I don't want insurance. I don't get sick. I asked: What happens if you get into an accident? You are a trucker; that is always a possibility. He said: All I have to do is go to the emergency room where they take care of me, no questions asked.

That is exactly the problem. When everybody is insured, costs will go down, because no one will be paying extra to cover the folks who rely on the emergency room for health care that they eventually never pay for. It is common sense. It saves lives, and it saves money.

I have been on the phone with tens of thousands of Montanans over the past few weeks answering questions about health care. A lot of them want to know how we are going to pay for this bill. How much will it increase our debt?

It won't increase our debt one thin dime. In fact, it will lower our deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, $132 billion over the next 10 years alone. It reduces the deficit even more in the decade after that. The fact that this bill saves money is pretty important to me. It doesn't add to the deficit. It cuts billions of dollars of government waste. It requires a bigger chunk of your premiums to go directly to better health care instead of administrative costs and profits, it saves money for families by lowering costs for everyone and by limiting the amount of money you have to pay out-of-pocket for health care and by emphasizing wellness and prevention--the low-hanging fruit of health care reform, and by holding insurance companies accountable so we don't pay more than our fair share for the health care we need.

When you turn on the TV these days or open the newspaper, you see all sorts of spin about the health care reform and Medicare. It amazes me how distorted the facts have become. I have read the bill. The plain- as-dirt fact is it makes Medicare stronger. All guaranteed Medicare benefits stay as they are. They are just that--guaranteed. Seniors are guaranteed to keep their benefits, such as hospital stays, access to doctors, home health care, nursing homes, and prescription drugs. How do we make Medicare stronger? We make it stronger by getting rid of wasteful spending, by making prescription drugs for seniors more affordable, and by spending your money smarter.

Without this bill, Medicare will be on the rocks within a matter of years. If we don't fix it now, it will go broke, leaving entire generations in the lurch. Millions of Americans have worked hard all their lives for Medicare benefits. They have earned it. That is why we are making Medicare better, not worse. That is common sense.

The same goes for VA health care. This bill does not affect VA health care or TRICARE. I serve on the Veterans' Affairs committee. Over the past 3 years we have made good progress in delivering the promises made to veterans. We still have a lot of work to do, but this health care reform legislation takes us forward even further for America's veterans.

Finally, this bill preserves some of the most important parts of quality health care: the relationship between you and your doctor and the freedom of choice you have as a patient. In Montana, as in many parts of the country, we don't tolerate the government snooping around our private lives or making personal decisions for us. Health care is no exception. This health care reform bill not only saves lives, it saves money and saves Medicare. It keeps the government out of the exam room and waiting room.

I go home to Montana about every weekend to visit with the folks and hear what is on their minds. I meet with doctors and nurses, hospital administrators and regular folks from all over the State to hear their concerns. Everywhere I go, health care is the No. 1 issue. It is clear that the worst option is to do nothing at all. If that happens, insurance companies won't be held accountable. As costs go up, health care costs will continue to break families and people who need treatment to stay alive won't get it.

I know a fellow farmer who worked some land back in Montana. When he got sick, he had to sell off entire chunks of his family farm to pay the bills, piece by piece. Piece by piece, I watched as he made painful sacrifices for his health care. Piece by piece, his livelihood was broken apart. No American deserves that.

People are calling out for help, because a lot of folks are falling through the cracks. I say to them: We are listening. We hear you, and we are doing something about it. That is why this is a good bill. It is a bill I support. It will allow Americans to get the health insurance they have needed, and the insurance will be affordable. It is the result of a lot of hard work and working together to do what is right for the country--for America's rural families, seniors, veterans, small businesses, family farms, and ranchers. The people of this country deserve no less.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Madam President, and I thank Chairman Akaka.

Madam President, I rise this morning to urge the Senate to pass the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009. Chairman Akaka has done a great job of explaining the particulars of this bill. I thank him and Senator Burr for their leadership in our committee.

I could also echo Senator Akaka in explaining the reasons to vote for better health care for this county's veterans. But, instead, I am going to boil it down to one reason. Madam President, we promised it--we promised it--to all the men and women who served in our military. We promised it, just as we promised our troops the resources they need when they are in battle. This is not a vote about politics or partisanship; it is about living up to the pledge we made to all our veterans.

Montana is a rural State, which means that all 100,000 veterans there are rural veterans. Many of them live in frontier communities. Sadly, that means they have a tougher time getting the health care they have earned. Many of them still have to pay out-of-pocket travel expenses to get to a VA hospital for their health care. According to some studies, veterans who live in rural America do not live as long as veterans who live in urban places. That is not only sad, it is disgraceful, and it is unacceptable.

This bill contains provisions I included with the help of rural veterans and veterans service organizations in Montana. A vote for this bill is a vote to give veterans in rural America and frontier communities better access to health care. A vote for this bill will lock in an acceptable VA mileage reimbursement rate for disabled veterans who have long distances to travel to get to a VA hospital. A vote for this bill will authorize the VA to award grants to veterans service organizations that drive veterans to their medical appointments. In a place such as Montana, we would be in pretty tough shape without the dozens of volunteers who make that sort of thing happen. A vote for this bill will also improve health care in Indian country, and it will improve mental health care for rural veterans.

Last week, over Veterans Day, I had the honor of attending events across Montana. I had the opportunity to say thank you to our veterans, as we should do every day. A lot of veterans to whom I spoke last week made it clear--made it clear to me--we still have a lot of work to do to live up to the promises we have made to our fighting men and women.

This legislation is not the be-all and end-all, but it is a big step forward that is the result of putting politics aside and working together to do right by all of the men and women who have served our country.

Passing this legislation is living up to a promise. It is common sense. That is why I urge my colleagues to support it.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise today in honor of those killed last week at Fort Hood. They died serving their country, and that means they died as heroes.

Tomorrow, as we honor the service and sacrifice of the brave men and women of America's military on Veterans Day, I ask all Americans to say a prayer for these 13 folks who gave the ultimate sacrifice and the 30 who were injured. Remember them and their families, their friends and the places they called home as we pay our respects.

Today, flags are flying at halfstaff across Montana in honor of the 13 victims killed and 30 wounded. One of the men who died was a veteran of Montana's Army National Guard. Michael Grant Kahill worked throughout Montana for many years as a guardsman and as a physician's assistant. To Michael's wife Joleen and to all of his loved ones, Montana joins the rest of the Nation in saying that our thoughts and prayers are with you.

What happened at Fort Hood doesn't make sense. It never will. But working together, we need to focus on keeping something such as this from happening again. What can we do right now? We can keep working together to live up to the promises we make to all of our troops while serving our country in the field or after they come home, and we can improve access to health care and mental health care that they deserve.

I join in mourning the lives lost at Fort Hood. I ask all Americans to keep those 13 heroes in their thoughts and prayers, and I urge my colleagues to keep working together to better serve all the men and women who have worn our country's uniform, and their families and their communities.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to join with the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee to urge passage of S. 1963. This bill contains the Rural Veterans Healthcare Improvement Act, a bipartisan measure that will make countless improvements in the VA for veterans in most of the rural places in this country. This bill locks in the mileage reimbursement rate for disabled veterans who have to travel long distances to get to a VA clinic. It also gives greater authority to develop new strategies to address the mental health needs of OIF and OEF veterans in highly rural areas where access to health care is an enormous challenge.

I am also pleased the bill authorized hiring of health care coordinators at a local level, to prioritize the needs of our country's 184,000 American Indian veterans. Most of these veterans are located in only a few States. The bill gets folks who understand the unique needs of tribal veterans to the areas that need them the most. I am honored we were able to get strong support across the veterans community for this bill and I think it will help a lot of rural veterans if we get this bill passed.

When someone puts their life on the line to defend this country, they have earned health care, education benefits, and disability benefits if needed. America's responsibility to honor the promise of our veterans should not depend on whether the veteran lives in an urban area, but too often that is still the case. This bill helps to address some of the inequalities facing rural veterans.

This bill was approved unanimously by the VA Committee just before Memorial Day. It is now almost Veterans Day. We can do better by folks who served our country and settled down in rural America. Let's not stand in the way for better VA services for rural veterans.

I understand there has been a hold put on this bill. Our veterans are too important for politics. The fact of the matter is, our veterans are folks who, as I said in my comments, have served this country so very well. We need to

step to the plate and serve them in the same way they served us--live up to our promises, live up to our obligations to the veterans of this country.

I encourage the Senate to pass this bill very soon. Hopefully, we can get it done before Veterans Day.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I congratulate Chairman Byrd and Senator Voinovich in getting this conference report to the Senate today. This is a very good example of good work that comes from folks who work together to get things done.

With good funding levels for our firefighter support programs and funding for two emergency operations centers critical to my State, this is a bill that does right by the folks to keep America safe every day.

There is one issue, however, that still gives me great concern; that is, the funding in this bill for the proposed National Bio and Agro- Defense Facility. The final conference report includes my amendment requiring DHS to conduct a security and risk mitigation study before getting any money for construction of the bio facility. It also includes an additional requirement that the National Academy of Sciences puts its independent eyes on the Department's study before funds go out the door.

This is a good start, but it is not enough. I do not understand why we are going to appropriate $30 million for a project we need not one but two studies about whether this project can move forward safely.

Independent experts have real concerns about building the NBAF in the heart of the beef belt where an accidental or intentional release of foot-and-mouth disease could have disastrous consequences for America's livestock industry, and that industry includes Montana where the livestock industry is a $1.5 billion industry.

This facility will house some of the most dangerous agricultural diseases around the world. We should not start doing this research on the U.S. mainland and in the middle of tornado alley without taking every possible precaution.

On a matter this serious, we ought to measure twice and cut once. Regrettably, by giving the Department $30 million this year, we are not heeding that old saying.

The GAO, the subcommittee, and independent experts acknowledge that we do not know if this research can be done safely on the U.S. mainland. We all agree that an accidental release of foot-and-mouth disease or another dangerous disease from this facility would devastate America's livestock industry. Yet we are providing the money to go ahead with it anyway.

Why not just wait and do the studies this year and then the Department can come back to us with their revised funding request next year?

I understand this has to do with getting Kansas to sign a cost- sharing agreement. But are we convinced Kansas will not put forward the money next year if this facility is to be built there?

If this facility is built in Kansas, the United States will become the only country, other than England and Canada, to do FMD research on a mainland. Everyone else does it on an island.

England had an accidental release in 2007 which led to eight separate outbreaks of FMD on farms surrounding their facility. Canada at least does it in an urban area far from livestock production areas.

Congress's nonpartisan, independent auditor, the Government Accountability Office, has sounded the alarm on this issue. They are telling us that Homeland Security has not conducted or commissioned any study to determine whether foot-and-mouth disease work can be done safely on the mainland.

Proponents of this facility have said it is OK to do this research because the new Kansas facility will have the most modern technology and all the safety bells and whistles that Plum Island lacks. But the GAO rightfully argues this view only encourages a false sense of security.

The GAO says:

Even with a proper biosafety program, human error can never

be completely eliminated. Many experts told us that the human

component accounts for the majority of accidents in high-

contaminant laboratories. This risk persists, even in the

most modern facilities and with the latest technology.

I know I am not the only Senator who shares the GAO's concern. So I look forward to working with many of my colleagues on this issue again next year. We do need to pay attention to what these studies say, and as a member of this subcommittee, I will be watching it very closely.

The Department is going to come here next spring with a $500 million request for funding for this project. That is a lot of money. But the true cost of doing this research in the middle of tornado alley could be much higher. The cost of cleaning up after an FMD release--the culling of entire herds of livestock, the loss of foreign agricultural sales that will endure for years after a release, and the loss of America's food security--will be measured in the tens of billions of dollars. That is something America cannot afford, and we must not let it happen.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask that the time be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. President, later today the Senate will vote on the McCain amendment No. 2583. This amendment would terminate funding for research and development of the Army's full-scale hypersonic test facility known as the MARIAH hypersonic wind tunnel.

The MARIAH Hypersonic Wind Tunnel Program is under development in Butte, MT. It is the Nation's only program to develop the wind tunnel technology required to test and evaluate new hypersonic missiles, space access vehicles, and other advanced propulsion technology, technology the Air Force says we will need.

MARIAH will be the first true air hypersonic wind tunnel program. The program has met its technical milestones and has not encountered significant setbacks. In fact, the Army Aviation Missile Command has given this project high marks. Here is what the Army has said:

This research has shown great potential to be used in a

missile test facility and is the only technology shown to

have any possibility of meeting the requirement for a Missile

Scale Hypersonic Wind Tunnel.

The Army has asked the MARIAH Program to provide testing capabilities at speeds of up to Mach 12. This is the next generation of hypersonic flight, something that has never been done before. To get to that capability, cutting-edge research and technologies are required.

The program already has provided very real and discernible benefits to both the scientific community as well as our armed services. There is no other facility in the world capable of meeting the performance requirements at Mach 8 and above.

According to a 2000 Air Force Science Advisory Board report, this type of testing will be needed for space access vehicles, global reach aircraft, and missiles that require air-breathing propulsion to reach speeds above Mach 8.

The MARIAH project has worked with Princeton University and Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories to develop technologies and computer modeling that exists nowhere else in the world.

The team has achieved world records by reaching test pressures of over 200,000 psi.

I ask unanimous consent for additional time.

Mr. President, I wish to add a few comments to those of the majority leader and the Republican leader.

I say to Max Baucus, congratulations on your 11,000th vote. You have done such a great job over the many years you have served the people of the great State of Montana--me being one of those.

I give Max a bad time, saying when he came to the Senate, I was just a child. Well, when he came to the Senate, he was just a child too. I have a lot of respect for this man.

Folks say Max is a lucky guy, and he is. But he creates that luck with hard work. He works very hard not only for the people of Montana but for this Nation.

I thank you, Max. Congratulations, and all the best.

Mr. President, the Air Force Material Command said last year that:

Hypersonic military and commercial flight vehicles,

including space asset vehicles, global research, and missile

defense systems, are envisioned future needs.

We are talking about the future, we are not talking about the past. The United States lacks capability to adequately test hypersonic propulsion. The MARIAH Project will fix that gap in research and development.

Russia, China, and others are aggressively developing a new type of missile that is believed to be too fast for the U.S. missile defense. India and Russia have a joint venture engaged in laboratory testing of supersonic cruise missiles capable of speeds beyond Mach V.

The fact is, folks, we need to look at the future. We need to look at what is going to happen in the next 5 or 10 years. MARIAH is about seeing a potential threat to our national defense that is on the horizon and finding a way to defeat it.

I would encourage you to vote against the McCain amendment. It is vital to our national security to defeat this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and with my colleague Senator Baucus about funding in this bill for missile defense. It is my understanding that in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year, Lieutenant General O'Reilly told the committee that the Missile Defense Agency requested $3.5 million in fiscal year 2010 for the missile defense program known as Net Centric Airborne Defense Element, NCADE. It is my further understanding that the committee does not, at this point, have concerns with the allocation of funds to the NCADE program. Is that correct?

I want to echo the observations of my colleague. Work on the NCADE project is done in part in Montana and that work provides valuable employment opportunities in a part of the State where the unemployment rate is in double digits.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes and that the time be charged against Senator Leahy's time.

Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about an issue that has been front and center in my office for the past 12 months-- reforming regulation of our financial markets.

I am a family farmer. In my neck of the woods, farmers usually don't sit around and talk about economic policy and Wall Street financial institutions.

But I do guarantee you that where I come from, everybody talks about common sense and why so much common sense seemed to be missing when America's financial industry almost collapsed a year ago.

Everyone in my State felt the impact of what happened when Lehman Brothers caved in, when Fannie and Freddie hit a dead end, when AIG went belly up, and when we saw daily headlines about bank mergers and bailouts.

We all paid a price because of a few greedy actors on Wall Street and no refs on the playing field. That price was $700 billion of taxpayer money. I opposed that bailout because it rewarded the wrong people, and I was concerned about its ability to create a single job for our small businesses or help one family farmer. I think it was a bad deal for Main Street.

Last year, I asked Treasury Secretary Paulson--a former chairman of Goldman Sachs--about why this happened. His answer: ``I don't know.''

Where I come from, answers such as that aren't good enough, and terms such as ``too big to fail'' don't make any sense at all. It is time to make some changes.

After what we have been through over the past year, it is clear we need to reform the rules that keep America's financial industry on our side.

How? Well, it is going to take a lot of hard work, honesty, and common sense.

We have already started. I have teamed up with some of my friends in the Senate, from both parties, to cosponsor the TARP Transparency Act. Our bill will better track the money being used to get the financial industry back on its feet because it is taxpayer money and because taxpayers deserve no less.

Over the course of the past year, the Senate Banking Committee has held countless hearings on regulatory modernization. The administration has put forth a good-faith effort in working with Congress in the massive legislative overhaul. Government has worked with the financial industry and consumers to outline the goals of sweeping new financial regulatory reform.

I don't believe comprehensive financial reform will guarantee we are safe from financial crises, but, if done right, it can provide folks with adequate protection, it can bring confidence back into the marketplace, and it can minimize the risk of a financial meltdown similar to the one we barely weathered last fall.

Unfortunately, there are those who don't believe comprehensive reform should be on the front burner. They are now lobbying to protect their own self-interests, their own profits, and the status quo over consumer protection.

That is why we need to use this 1-year anniversary as a reminder to act now to protect consumers and investors, to close the loopholes in our regulatory framework, and to ensure that no company is too big to fail.

We must regulate derivatives; supervise financial companies that have been outside the scope of regulation, thereby creating a level playing field; ensure that there is strong supervision of all financial firms-- not just depository institutions; build on the bipartisan success of the credit card legislation and pass mortgage reform to protect consumers; combine the numerous banking regulators into a more simple, streamlined, commonsense structure that is capable of supervising 21st century financial institutions; create an entity that will protect taxpayers from future financial corporate failures and minimize the need for further government action; increase capital standards to prohibit institutions from growing too big to fail; and we must ensure that those companies selling mortgages and securities keep some skin in the game by holding onto a portion of the underlying asset to keep them honest.

As we move forward with regulatory reform, I will be working hard to eliminate any unintended consequences, specifically as it relates to community banks and credit unions.

In Montana, when we talk about the banking industry, we are talking about community banks and credit unions. They are the good actors. They don't live on the edge. They didn't get into the Wall Street shenanigans that caused this mess.

Montana's community banks and credit unions serve their towns and communities reliably and safely. We are fortunate in Montana to not have had a bank fail in over 10 years. We also have one of the lowest rates of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the Nation. We have had very few problems as it applies to predatory subprime loans.

The community banks and credit unions are not the problem. I wish to make sure we do not place excessive fees or regulatory burdens on these small but very important institutions, such as the community banks.

Over the course of the coming weeks and months, I plan to work with Senator Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and all my colleagues toward commonsense reform that will increase supervision and transparency of the financial markets, that will bring back investor confidence, and that will protect consumers and safeguard us from another situation where the greed of Wall Street penalizes hard-working families.

Earlier this week, the President spoke on Wall Street. He said:

We are beginning to return to normalcy.

But he warned that:

Normalcy cannot lead to complacency.

I couldn't agree more. That is what we in Montana call common sense.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time during the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.