Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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. 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.

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.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, this week the Senate will hopefully begin debate on an economic stimulus package. Front and center in the debate will be how we balance the need to get our economy going while once again addressing issues that revolve around the national debt. I hope there is one thing this body will agree on unanimously, that we must not forget America's disabled veterans in the debate. Earlier today I heard Members on the floor talk about pet projects. Veterans issues are an important project to me, and I will not forget about disabled vets as we move forward with this economic stimulus package.

There are about 2.8 million vets who receive some form of disability through the VA. The good news is that most of these folks hold down other employment and would get a tax rebate through the House's economic stimulus bill. But for another 250,000 disabled vets who have no other income other than their veterans disability benefit and maybe a Social Security disability check, they would get absolutely nothing from the House bill, not one red cent.

Let me say that again: The bill proposed by the House and by President Bush would not give a quarter of a million disabled veterans one nickel. That is simply wrong.

Under the leadership of Senator Baucus, the Senate Finance package corrects that error. It would ensure that the folks who were injured in the cause of defending our freedom are able to get something back.

I assure my colleagues that these veterans feel the pinch of higher gas prices, heating costs, and everything else in between, just as much as any other household struggling on a fixed income. The difference is that these folks have worn the colors of our country. They have defended this country. The way we treat those who have fought for our freedom and our Nation says a great deal about our society because when it comes to veterans, we are not talking about a handout, we are talking about a country honoring our promise we have made to our service men and women.

I wish to take a minute to read a letter I received recently from Warren Matte, a veteran from Harlem, MT. Here is what he says:

For those of us who are combat veterans and poor people, we

are now and have been in a recession for a good numbers of

years. We are on the bottom rung of the ladder, and it looks

like we will always be there. Some of us are surviving on VA

benefits and Social Security. The long distances we have to

travel here in Montana and the high cost of living is keeping

us in poverty. There are 500,000 homeless veterans in this

great Nation and no one cares. We put our lives on the line

so everyone can be free and live the good life, and no one

cares what happens to us and our families.

When our combat veterans are using phrases such as ``the bottom rung of the ladder,'' I think we can do better than that. When disabled veterans worry that ``no one cares,'' we must do better than that.

This Finance Committee bill is a step in the right direction. So I urge my colleagues, no matter what else you may think of the stimulus package, do not forget about the Warren Mattes of the world. Do not forget about our disabled veterans.

I have been in this body for a little over 1 year. I can tell my colleagues that from my perspective, the Senate is an easy place to stop things. If you choose, you can stop any piece of legislation from moving forward.

I think the House stimulus package is a good stimulus package, but it can be made a whole lot better, and we need to make it a whole lot better. For the 250,000 disabled vets, for the 2.5 million seniors, for those folks who need unemployment benefits, for those folks who need assistance with their heating bills, we need to make it better.

I am not sure this economic stimulus bill will get us out of the economic stresses we feel right now in this country, but I can tell my colleagues one thing: If we don't address the issues that revolve around the people I just talked about--the disabled vets, the seniors, the folks who need help with their heating, the folks who need unemployment benefits--we are making a huge mistake.

We ought not to be stopping with this bill. We ought to be making it better in the Senate and passing it on for the President to sign it. We ought to be stamping it with our approval.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his fine work on this amendment. My comments today will indicate my full support for it. I hope this body uses its wise judgment to put this on the Intelligence bill as it comes forth. I think it is critically important that we move this amendment forward to protect American citizens from unwarranted wiretapping.

Let me say I am very glad we finally reached an agreement on the amendments to the Intelligence Committee bill that would replace current law, that current law being the Protect America Act. I voted against the Protect America Act this last August because it included measures that would permit the Federal Government to conduct warrantless wiretapping and intercept innocent Americans' communications. We all recognize the need for our Government to have the necessary tools to keep us safe. That is at the forefront in all of our minds. At the same time, we must do this in a way that protects our civil liberties and constitutional rights to privacy. A number of amendments have been offered with that goal in mind, including the one I rise to talk about today: the Feingold-Webb-Tester amendment.

This amendment would require that all inadvertent surveillance of a U.S. person--someone who is a U.S. citizen, a legal permanent resident, or a U.S. corporation--be tagged and sequestered. Right now, under the Protect America Act and under the Intelligence Committee bill that we are currently debating, the Government would be authorized to have unfettered surveillance of all communications of all people outside of the United States without a warrant. This access would also be extended to Americans here in the United States at the other end of that phone call or e-mail message. Americans abroad or those who receive communications from abroad could be wiretapped without a warrant. That deficiency is what this amendment addresses.

Let me be clear. This amendment does not stop surveillance from happening; it merely sets a higher threshold for access to communications that involve Americans. Let me repeat that. It sets a higher threshold for access to communications for those that involve Americans.

The Feingold-Webb-Tester amendment will not impede the collection of foreign intelligence information or compromise our national security. It would merely require that intelligence intercepted overseas of an American citizen's communications would have to be tagged and sequestered before it could be accessed. To be accessed, the intelligence community would have to have a specific warrant to review Americans' overseas communications.

Why is this necessary? Because in the past, the administration implemented a warrantless surveillance program which severely encroached upon our rights against unauthorized search and seizure.

Under the Protect America Act, when we monitor foreign communications, there is no requirement that anyone involved in the communication be under any suspicion of wrongdoing. As a result, simply communicating with someone in a foreign country opens any American to surveillance. This is most often the case when a conversation starts abroad and ends up with someone in the United States. Why? Because the Government must meet only two criteria: that at least one party to the communication be outside of the United States, and that the purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence.

This overreaching protocol is even more expansive than the administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping program which is focused on people targeted because of their involvement with suspected terrorists. I am opposed to the widespread wiretapping and surveillance of innocent Americans.

The Director of National Intelligence has openly stated that the current law, the Protect America Act, allows full collection of all international communications into and out of the United States, well beyond what the Government says it needs to protect the American people. Further amendments will be offered during the course of this debate that explicitly state such widespread full collection of all international communication is not authorized. However, as it stands, any time you communicate with someone overseas by e-mail or by phone, your conversation could very well end up in a Government database somewhere.

These days, international communications are commonplace. Many Americans have friends and family living overseas studying or for business or vacationing. When they return, they often keep in touch with the friends they have made while living abroad. For example, if you are on a vacation in Europe and call home to check on your elderly parents, the entire conversation could get caught in the crosshairs of this foreign surveillance program. That is not right and it does not make any sense. It opens innocent Americans to the unrestricted surveillance of wholly innocent conversations by the Federal Government. This is not what Americans expect or deserve.

We must act to ensure that such communications caught in the widely cast net of surveillance are segregated or specifically designated so that privacy concerns can be minimized. This amendment, the Feingold- Webb-Tester amendment, would require that this information be kept apart as a way to protect the privacy rights of those people who innocently find themselves under surveillance. The content would not be destroyed, but investigators

would have to go through additional steps in order to access it in the future.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is meant for foreign surveillance. Our amendment reiterates that focus and it protects Americans from the accidental but very real intrusion of our right to privacy. I don't want my granddaughter, my wife, your kids, or any other Americans to have their communications monitored, stored away, and then easily accessible at a later date. This amendment ensures that doesn't happen.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is critically important for the success of this bill and to protect innocent Americans' civil liberties.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I congratulate and honor the football players at Carroll College, in Helena, MT, who this past Saturday became the National Champions of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. The Fighting Saints defeated the University of Sioux Falls 17-to-9 on a cold, rainy day in Savannah, TN.

Folks in my home State are getting used to celebrating championships this time of year. Carroll's historic victory this past Sunday marks the fifth time in 6 years that they have been crowned National Champions.

I want to extend my congratulations to coach Mike Van Diest and his entire staff, cheerleading coach Pam Jones and her squad, athletic director Bruce Parker, Carroll College president Tom Trebon, and the entire Carroll community for bringing home the national title.

But I mostly want to applaud the young men who make up this remarkable team. Years from now they may forget the early morning and late night practices. They may forget the summer training in the Montana heat and other sacrifices they have made. But they will never forget the muddy day in December of 2007 when they raised up that trophy.

As a former teacher and referee I know firsthand how important interscholastic competition can be. It takes the dedication and determination of the young men and women who make a team. It takes the support of the community and the alumni. And it takes patient and talented coaches to lead.

Mr. President, I also know how outstanding an institution Carroll is. I have always been impressed by the accomplishments of both the students and the faculty and as the father of an alumna, I will always have a special place in my heart for Carroll.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Physical Therapist Student Loan Repayment Eligibility Act of 2007 with Senators Johnson, Cardin, and Brown on behalf of the folks across America who are in desperate need of access to qualified health care providers. This bill will help bring physical therapists to the rural, frontier and underserved communities of America.

Many rural States have an inadequate number of health professionals, let alone access to physical therapists whose services help shorten the recovery time from injury or surgery, as well as provide noninvasive treatment to conditions that might otherwise end up more severe.

We all know kids who go to school with dreams of becoming a health care professional and serving their communities. But, they graduate with so much debt that they have to take the highest paying job usually in an urban setting--leaving their dreams in the dust. My colleagues and I are offering this bill to help them fulfill that dream of working in underserved areas, often the very same areas they grew up in.

Like many other health care professionals serving in the National Health Service Corps, physical therapy students are more likely to serve in rural areas if it is financially feasible through the loan repayment program that is part of the National Health Service Corps.

The average total costs of tuition and fees for a physical therapist student attending an in-state public or private institution are $26,000 and $64,000 respectively. When they are starting out, they can expect to earn about $51,000 per year. One can easily understand why they would be really tempted to find the highest paying job they can. Despite the health care needs, these jobs are not in places like Culbertson, MT; Martin, SD; Ironton, OH or Denton, MD, where reimbursement and salaries tend to be lower. However, a loan repayment program will make it possible for these committed health care professionals to be able to come into our communities, serve our families and be able to pay off their school loans.

My cosponsors and I think this a very important bill and we welcome our colleagues support. Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Physical Therapist Student Loan Repayment Eligibility Act of 2007 with Senators Johnson, Cardin, and Brown on behalf of the folks across America who are in desperate need of access to qualified health care providers. This bill will help bring physical therapists to the rural, frontier and underserved communities of America.

Many rural States have an inadequate number of health professionals, let alone access to physical therapists whose services help shorten the recovery time from injury or surgery, as well as provide noninvasive treatment to conditions that might otherwise end up more severe.

We all know kids who go to school with dreams of becoming a health care professional and serving their communities. But, they graduate with so much debt that they have to take the highest paying job usually in an urban setting--leaving their dreams in the dust. My colleagues and I are offering this bill to help them fulfill that dream of working in underserved areas, often the very same areas they grew up in.

Like many other health care professionals serving in the National Health Service Corps, physical therapy students are more likely to serve in rural areas if it is financially feasible through the loan repayment program that is part of the National Health Service Corps.

The average total costs of tuition and fees for a physical therapist student attending an in-state public or private institution are $26,000 and $64,000 respectively. When they are starting out, they can expect to earn about $51,000 per year. One can easily understand why they would be really tempted to find the highest paying job they can. Despite the health care needs, these jobs are not in places like Culbertson, MT; Martin, SD; Ironton, OH or Denton, MD, where reimbursement and salaries tend to be lower. However, a loan repayment program will make it possible for these committed health care professionals to be able to come into our communities, serve our families and be able to pay off their school loans.

My cosponsors and I think this a very important bill and we welcome our colleagues support. Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 3666, which we will have a vote on at some point later in the day.

This amendment to the farm bill addresses manipulation in the livestock industry. We have had consolidation in agribusiness over the last many decades. In the meat packer industry, for example, there are four major meat packers that control 80 percent of the

market in the United States. Being big is not necessarily bad, but it can allow companies to manipulate and control the marketplace. We all know a monopolistic and controlled marketplace doesn't benefit anybody. Without competition, without that free market, we put our cow/calf producers at risk.

The meat-packing companies have the past because of packer ownership manipulated forward contracting and pressure on producers to distort the supply and demand, maximizing their profits often at the expense of the cow/calf producer. The producer ends up being price taker and not price maker due to manipulation of the marketplace and restriction of the free market we all expect in the cattle industry.

Way back in about 1921, this Government had the foresight to realize the free market system was a good one and that it wasn't working quite right, even with the antitrust laws which were deemed inadequate. So they passed an act called the Packers and Stockyards Act. That act has worked pretty well over the many decades since 1921. Unfortunately, court decisions recently misinterpreted the intention of the act.

Back in 2005, a lawsuit was brought forward by a handful of livestock producers. This lawsuit claimed market manipulation by the meat-packing industry, thereby artificially lowering the price the cow/calf producer would get for their cattle. A jury awarded $1.28 billion in damages. Some time later, three judges decided to rewrite the Packers and Stockyards Act instead of interpreting it. They overturned the decision based on a legitimate business reason.

Amendment No. 3666 once again clarifies the Packers and Stockyards Act to its original intent, reintroducing competition into the marketplace, helping maintain a level and competitive playing field between widely dispersed cattle producers throughout the country and highly concentrated meat packers.

I don't think there is a person in this body who doesn't think the free market system is a good one. Currently, what we have in the meat- packing industry is four companies that control 80 percent of the marketplace. The CEOs of these four companies could go out on the golf course and determine how they are going to manipulate the marketplace. We need to make sure as a government we have protection in place for our family ranchers. That is what this amendment will accomplish. It will reinstate the Packers and Stockyards Act to its original form which worked so well for so many years.

We have 170 groups in favor of this amendment. There is going to be some groups that oppose it. The truth is, if we want to have a vibrant cow/calf producer environment and economy, we need to pass the amendment. We need to make sure they have every market advantage they deserve. It is tough enough on the farm and on the ranch to make a living. Right now in Montana, I didn't check the weather this morning, but it is probably a heck of a lot colder than it is here. In some places in Montana, because of drought, they are out feeding cattle right now. They are doing an honest day's work, and they should get an honest day's pay. When you have monopolization in the marketplace, it takes away the ability to get an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. This amendment is going to help the folks in Montana where agriculture is the No. 1 industry and the No. 1 issue. If we are going to keep this industry vibrant, we need to pass this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Yes.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank the good Senators from Kansas for their comments. I, too, respect your opinion. I ask that you pay careful attention to what I am about to say. I am actually in the specialty crop business personally. It has been well documented, I raise organic crops. I do not raise organic beef, but I am around people who raise organic beef and market it freely. They will be able to continue to market it freely with the adoption of this amendment. So the folks, the Knights you talked about, in Kansas are still going to be able to market their hormone-free beef.

It speaks specifically in the Packers and Stockyards Act about restraining commerce and creating a monopoly. They cannot have an alleged business justification to do that. When you are adding value to a product, you are increasing the value. When you are raising specialty crops or you are specializing in grass-fed beef or specializing in hormone-fed beef or antibiotic-fed beef, you still have access to those premium prices.

What the Packers and Stockyards Act does is it protects the cattle producers and those feeders you talked about. It allows them to stay in business, to be able to get that premium price. What this amendment does is protects them from those four packers--who control 80 percent of the country's meat supply; and it could be fewer than that next year controlling 80 percent of the meat supply if they buy one another out-- it protects them from those four packers setting prices by using an alleged business justification to create a monopoly or restrain the commerce around the meatpacking industry.

It is critically important that you know that the unintended consequences you talk about are not going to exist with this amendment. Those unintended consequences are simply not there. What this amendment will do is it will reinstate the free market system in our cattle industry.

The point I made earlier, in my opening statement, is where you can literally have four CEOs of four companies that control 80 percent of the meatpacking industry be able to manipulate forward contracts, be able to manipulate the transactions within their business, and put on a business justification for it, and now all of a sudden it is OK under the Packers and Stockyards Act. That simply is not right. We ought not go encouraging monopolization anywhere, much less in agriculture that puts our producers at risk to driving them off the ranches in this country.

In Montana, we have about four times as many cattle as we do people, I believe. It is a big issue. Premiums are still going to be there. Specialized beef is still going to be there. The ability to add value to our meat products is still going to be there for them to get the price they deserve for it. What this will stop is the meatpackers from--and I read right straight from the Packers and Stockyards Act-- restraining commerce, creating a monopoly, regardless of any alleged business justification.

Next paragraph: restraining commerce, regardless of any alleged business justification.

The last time I heard, the last time I checked, if you are getting paid a premium, you are not restraining commerce, you are promoting commerce.

And it goes on: to manipulate or control prices regardless of any alleged business justification.

There are no boogeymen in these amendments, folks. This is a good amendment. We dealt with an amendment yesterday that talked about producers and the kind of pressures they are under and the mental health aspects that impact farmers and ranchers when they are put under financial pressures. I believe we adopted that amendment.

The fact is, if you want to help farmers' and ranchers' success, adopt this amendment. It will make them more financially vibrant.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

You bet.

Yes.

How much do you want?

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Kansas for their time. I appreciate a good discussion on the amendment. If they would not have come to the floor, we would not have had this good discussion. I also thank Senators Grassley and Harkin for cosponsoring this amendment. I particularly thank Senator Harkin for his comments on the floor, and also Senator Grassley for his comments.

Senator Grassley and I are arguably the two folks in the Senate who are in production agriculture. I am very proud of that fact personally. I know Senator Grassley is, too. I know everybody in this body wants to make sure that people in production agriculture get a fair shake--not over and above what they deserve but a fair shake. That is what the farmers want and what this bill is supposed to be about.

In this body, we all know you can only make good decisions if you have good information. We also know if you take just three words--and I will admit this is called the ``no justification amendment.'' But if you take those three words and set aside all of the other words around it, they don't mean a heck of a lot. You can interpret them to mean anything you want. I am not an attorney. I respect those in this body who are and folks around this country who are. But you need to take the entire bill and look at the language as it is inserted into the bill.

If a farmer or rancher has health issues with their herd, whether it is pork, chickens, beef, or any other livestock they are marketing for food purposes, they don't have to buy it. That isn't restraining trade or commerce. That is not creating a monopoly. That is what those words revolve around--those three words--``no business justification.'' You have to take at least the segment before, if you are going to get an idea of what it says. It says the effect of restraining commerce or creating a monopoly ``regardless of any alleged business justification.''

If you want to put the boots to the ranchers--it won't happen all the time, and let's hope it happens very little. In fact, if they don't put this amendment on the farm bill to make the Packers and Stockyards bill what it was when it was originally passed in 1921, you are not going to have a free market system. You are going to have a system where the four major packers can manipulate the marketplace when they feel like it. They may never feel like it. But if times get tough, what the heck, make a few extra bucks and keep the stockholders happy.

It was talked about today that it is going to make beef or pork into a generic commodity. I led the charge on country-of-origin labeling in Montana. We passed it in 2005. I want our products to be different. I am all in favor of certified Angus beef and grassfed and all those specialized things that the consumer wants. This bill doesn't take that ability away. If you have sick cattle, you don't have to buy them. If you have Angus certified beef, you can market it that way, as long as it meets their criteria--certified Angus beef I am talking about, not stockyards.

In fact, this is good for production agriculture. Senator Grassley talked about farm gate prices. If you want to hold them artificially low and keep putting in subsidies, these are the kinds of things you do. If you want to have a free market system where people get a fair price for a fair day's work for the product they worked so hard to get on the market, the family farms and ranchers--cow/calf operators, in this particular case--this amendment needs to be passed.

How much time do I have?

In closing, there are no unintended consequences here. This is straightforward. If you read the language as it goes in the Packers and Stockyards Act, it can be interpreted no other way other than if a company wants to restrain commerce or create a monopoly, period.

It will stop packers from, as Senator Grassley talked about, dumping cattle when prices are high. It will make the market work better.

In closing, I again thank the Senators from Kansas. I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin. I ask this body to take this amendment for what it is. It is an amendment that will indeed support family farm cow/calf producers on the ranches of this country.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I will speak after they get done, so I will retain my 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina, my comrade in the Russell Building. I appreciate his comments. You have to have good information to make a good decision. There are a couple of things I need to point out. First, in production agriculture, we are not price makers, we are price takers. When you have 80 percent consolidation in the meat packing industry, you don't have much choice when they don't have this language in the Packers and Stockyards Act.

If you are talking about rewarding a grower because they have less fat, or bigger ribeye size, or leaner beef, this doesn't stop that from happening. I believe there are enough attorneys in the room that if you read this Packers and Stockyard Act in its entirety, which is about a page, you will find out that the alleged business justification applies to when you are restraining commerce or creating a monopoly. If you want a free market system, which you talked about, this body needs to pass this amendment so there is a free market in the pork, poultry, beef industry. Pork, by the way, is more consolidated than beef. Chickens are worse yet. All I want for farmers and ranchers and the people in production agriculture--the cow/calf operators, in particular--is that they get a fair shake.

If we pass this amendment No. 3666, you will allow those cow/calf operators to get a fair shake in the marketplace and be able to become financially viable, so this Government doesn't have to talk about subsidies, and they can get their paycheck from the marketplace, and it is a fair paycheck.

With that, I ask the Senate to vote for this amendment. I thank my fellow Members for the good debate.

Madam President, I encourage the body to support the amendment. It addresses manipulation in the meatpacking industry. It would stop the meatpackers from using business justifications to create a monopoly or restrain commerce. That is it.

If you want free markets and to support family farmers and ranchers and cow/calf operations, you need to vote for this amendment. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside amendment 3711 and call up amendment No. 3666, and further ask unanimous consent that the time not be charged against the time allocated for amendment 3711.

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

Mr. President, the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 prohibits meatpackers from engaging in any course of business or doing any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices. This act was passed in Congress way back when it was determined that the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the FTC Act were insufficient to promote competitive markets.

Unfortunately, back in 2005, three judges decided to rewrite the Packers and Stockyards Act instead of interpreting this statute. What this amendment will do is reinstate the Packers and Stockyards Act, and with that reinstate free market competition in the marketplace.

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

Madam President, before I begin my speech today on the Wild Horse border crossing legislation, I want to say a couple things in reference to the farm will, and I will be speaking on it, potentially, later today. But if what I have heard this morning here in morning business is correct, I ask the leadership on the other side of the aisle to bring that caucus together.

The farm bill is far too important to play politics. It is a critical issue dealing with this country's food security and dealing with this country's family farmers. As I have said many times before, if we ever lose family farm agriculture in this country, this country will change for the worse--no ifs, ands, or buts about it. This farm bill is a good farm bill, passing out of committee, I believe, unanimously. It is a bill that deserves an honest debate by this body and deserves passage. It is critically important that this happen very soon, that we set our differences aside and work together to get this bill done.