Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of an exceptional Montanan and member of the Greatest Generation, Joan Trimble Toole. Joan passed away peacefully 1 year ago today at the age of 92 in Helena, MT. Her tireless dedication to public service set a tremendous example that we should all strive to achieve. Joan's footprint on policy and progress in Montana is remarkable; however, if she were here today, I suspect she would tell you that nothing made her prouder than being a grandma to 25 grandchildren and 17 great- grandchildren. Joan always put her family first, but her commitment to improving Montana communities didn't lag far behind. I recently had an opportunity to read a letter that Joan sent to Eleanor Roosevelt in 1942. Joan was 19, and the United States was fully engaged in World War II. In one of her earliest attempts to serve her country, Joan desperately wanted to join the war effort. Unfortunately, she still had a year remaining to complete her college degree. Joan found herself in a bit of a bind and sought the advice of the First Lady. She wrote, ``. . . I would like very much to leave college at the mid years to volunteer for some sort of service that will take up all my time and preferably take me away from home. I do not care about uniforms and really would like to drive an ambulance on foreign duty so that I could feel I was actually in contact with the people who need help.'' Mrs. Roosevelt responded a few weeks later and stressed the need for Joan to stay in school and finish her degree. Undiscouraged and always resolute, Joan still managed to contribute to the war effort. She may not have driven ambulances abroad like she wanted, but she found a different way to serve by helping track German submarines as she concluded her studies. It is clear that Joan possessed an extraordinary penchant for service at an early age and a drive to go beyond contemporary norms to fight for her beliefs, her country, and her friends and neighbors. Fortunately for Montana, Joan moved to our great State in 1949. Joan would go on to spend the majority of the next 75 years living in Montana. She raised a family and fought to make Montana a better place as a political activist. She championed the causes that still to this day make Montana the best State to live in and raise a family. She cared deeply about all Montanans' right to a clean and healthy environment and to a quality public education. Perhaps, most notably, she cared deeply about the importance of expanding the role of women in politics in Montana and beyond. In 1954, along with friends Laura Nicholson and Harriett Meloy, Joan founded the Montana League of Women Voters, a group that proved to be instrumental in the formation of Montana's 1972 Constitutional Convention and to the passage of a new State constitution in June of 1972. The 1972 Montana Constitution includes a provision that states, ``All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment.'' Joan was so incredibly proud that Montana's Constitution guaranteed citizens the right to a clean and healthful environment. She brought it up all the time although she typically failed to mention the part where her activism played a critical role in securing the language. For the rest of her life, nothing could deter Joan's dedication to protecting Montana's landscape and education system. She served on the Board of Natural Resources and Conservation, lobbied for the Office of Public Instruction during legislative sessions, and shared her expertise with numerous political campaigns and ballot initiatives. Joan volunteered for nonprofit environmental organizations, libraries, schools, the Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters. For decades, Joan was a fixture in Montana politics, fighting for progressive causes across the State. If there was an opportunity to advocate for change or improve her community, Joan always showed up. Throughout my 8 years in Montana Senate, it was not unusual to glance up to the senate gallery and see Joan sitting in the front row. She usually had a grandchild or two in tow, as she always went to great lengths to teach her grandchildren the importance of public service and significance of always showing up. She would beam as her grandchildren took in the scene and processed the importance of being involved. She knew that her last calling in life was to pass her experiences, stories, and wisdom onto the next generation. Even in her last few years, as it grew increasingly difficult for her to get around, I saw Joan at most of the events I held in Helena. She would give me a hug and thank me for my work before venturing off to find who she really came to see: my wife, Sharla. A year later, we still miss Joan every time we pass through Helena. Montana lost an incredible leader and an irreplaceable voice. As we move forward and aim to tackle the challenges facing our Nation, we must remember the lessons we learned from Joan. We must ask ourselves how we can step up and serve our country, like Joan did in her letter to Eleanor Roosevelt. We must take action to advocate for our beliefs, like Joan did when she founded the Montana chapter of the League of Women Voters. Finally, we must always show up, like Joan did until the last days of her life.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the statement I previously delivered about the life of Benjamin Charles Steele printed in the Record.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to honor the life of my close friend, Pam Hillery. On Wednesday, September 14, 2016, Pam passed away, surrounded by her loving family, but leaving behind an unforgettable and inspiring life story. Her legacy is one of tremendous political activism and civic involvement, and it will endure throughout the Treasure State. Pam, who suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, never let her diagnosis prevent her from lending a helping hand to the community or working tirelessly to improve the lives of those around her. She immersed herself in community service. Born in Mechanicsburg, PA, in July 1960, Pam graduated high school in Germany in 1978--where her father was stationed with the U.S. Department of Defense--and attended college at the College of William and Mary, eventually gaining her master's degree in environmental studies at the University of Montana. It was there that she met her future husband, Paul. They married in 1989. In every town or city where they lived, Pam gave back to the community. In Helena, she volunteered for the Solid Waste Task Force, CASA, St. Helena Cathedral, and won a seat on the Helena Citizens Council, in addition to cofounding Trash for Trees. In Havre, where she and Paul moved in 2000, she volunteered for St. Jude's Catholic Church, the Boys and Girls Club of the Hi-Line, Havre Elementary PTO, Havre-Hill County Crimestoppers, and the Hi-Line/ Northern Showcase Concert Association. She served two terms on the city council and launched a run for mayor. Even after being diagnosed with ALS, she remained undaunted. Pam was appointed to a 1-year term on the city council after a council member resigned, but this was not simply a caretaker appointment. Pam was no placeholder. She immediately went into action and launched a sweeping plan to fix the city's decaying streets. After leaving office, Pam was concerned the council was dragging its feet, so she showed up at a meeting. Unable to speak, she had her husband, Paul, read a letter urging prompt action. Still frustrated, she followed up with a letter to the editor. That was Pam. She never gave up. Pam loved Havre and gave 100 percent of herself to make her community and her State a better place. Pam is survived by her husband, Paul, their two children Dolan and Caroline, her five siblings, several nieces and nephews, and one great- nephew. I know that they are grieving, but I hope they find some comfort in the fact that Pam will be remembered by a grateful community that is better off for having been graced with her enduring and cheerful spirit.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, on July 21, 2016, shortly before his 72nd birthday, the United States lost a great man, an outstanding soldier, and an unparalleled advocate for his fellow veterans--and I lost a great friend. Rodger McConnell's legacy will be forever remembered as one of perseverance, passion, a humbling work ethic, and an enduring love of Starbucks coffee. Born in August 1944, Rodger graduated high school in 1962 and found employment with a local gas company for several years. Answering the call of duty, Rodger enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1966. He saw combat in Vietnam as a cavalry troop forward observer for mortars and artillery with the 9th Infantry Division and the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment before his honorable discharge a year later. In his postwar years, Rodger overcame several personal hardships, including homelessness and posttraumatic stress disorder, but he remained undaunted and undefeated. It was these struggles that created an empathetic man, who became a tireless and fearless advocate for other struggling veterans. Eventually receiving a liberal arts degree from Carroll College and a master's degree in K-12 education from Montana State University- Northern, Rodger spent several years as an educator before he retired in 2003 and launched into his unwavering service for veterans in Cascade County. Working with State District Judge Greg Pinski, Rodger helped create a veterans court to help veterans navigate the justice system and get the help and treatment they need to get back on their feet. Rodger also played a pivotal role in constructing the Montana Veterans Memorial, which serves as a landmark in Great Falls to honor those who have served. Most notably, Rodger spearheaded the ``Stand Down'' event in Great Falls, providing veterans with clothing and access to job training and health services. Through this important event, Rodger made a difference in the lives of hundreds of veterans. Rodger was also an extremely active volunteer, contributing to the Great Falls community by registering voters, hosting a radio show on a local Great Falls station, and volunteering with the local Optimist Club. In Rodger's eyes, the community was his family, and he was theirs. Let us now take a moment to recognize the exceptional life of Rodger McConnell and the legacy he left behind. It is a legacy I hope each of us can aspire towards.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I say thank you to Senator McCaskill. The Senator from Missouri is right. Folks in this country are sick and tired of Congress not doing its job. I was just on the radio a few minutes ago and the radio announcer said: You know you guys have been out for several weeks. What do you anticipate you are going to get done over the next four weeks? I said: I wish we were in session during the next four weeks because the truth is there is a lot of stuff that needs to be done, but people are talking about getting out at the end of this week or the end of next week, and then that is it. That will be it until the lameduck, if we have one. It seems as though this body runs based on the next election, not based on the policies that need to be passed to make this country do its job. We play political games after political games, worrying about the next election rather than worrying about the next generation. The Senator from Missouri is right. This Republican-led Senate has not done its job. Does a hard-working nurse wait until the next election day to insert the IV? No, she goes to work. You wouldn't hire that nurse if that happened. Does the teacher walk into the classroom and say: You know, it is the middle of September, election day is November 8, so you guys don't have to come back to school until after the election? No. I served on a school board for a good number of years, and that teacher wouldn't have been working, wouldn't have been getting paid. I will also tell my colleagues that I know firsthand a farmer would not wait for the polls to close to harvest his or her crop. If he or she did, they would be out of business. We wonder why people are so upset with us. The American people have to do their job day in and day out, no matter what, and they expect the same from the people they elect to this body. So what is the problem? The Republicans control the Senate. They control the House. Why can't we get anything done? I think it is because there is a total lack of leadership. We need to look no further than Zika and the current impasse and the political games that are being played with that. This is a horrible disease. I have talked with the researchers. They don't know all the impacts. We need to do the research to find that out. We do know that it impacts the unborn and it can be sexually transmitted. We don't know if there are long-term impacts to people who may get it now who don't see any symptoms but could see symptoms later. We passed a bipartisan bill with 89 votes. We addressed this crisis head-on. But the Senate and the House leadership got together, they shut the doors, they smoked a few cigars, probably ate a few steaks, and said: We are going to make this into a political football. And that is exactly what they did. They inserted partisan politics into a solution. Right now we have no bill passed that deals with the Zika crisis, and it is a health crisis in this country. But that is not the only one. When I go back to Montana, whose population is fully 10 percent veterans, they talk about the needs of veterans. We have a bill, under the leadership of Dick Blumenthal and Johnny Isakson, that takes care of our veterans. It helps fix the veterans' problems in this country. It helps fix leadership vacancies. It helps fix the shortage of doctors. It helps veterans get access to the VA. It passed out of committee unanimously. It is called the Veterans First Act. It passed out of committee last May, 125 days ago. The Senate will not take the bill up. It is a step in the right direction to take care of our veterans, yet we will not take it up because we have to go home. My colleague from Missouri showed us the map. People would think Congress would do their job on behalf of veterans, but they would be wrong. Then we have the Supreme Court. The Constitution--which people in this body cite a lot, and should--is very clear that the Senate has a duty to advise and consent to the President's Supreme Court nominees. I just heard the Republican leader the other day say that there will be no Supreme Court nominee taken up this year. That is great. Now the Supreme Court is just as dysfunctional as Congress. We see it with the decisions that come out on tally votes. Don't even give Judge Garland a meeting, much less a hearing. I think the American people deserve better. They need an opportunity to see the nominee in action. My colleagues here in the Senate sit on their hands. It will be probably 15 months before the Supreme Court gets another nominee, and maybe not then either, because who knows what kind of antics are in store. And there is more. We have not only Zika, the VA, and the Supreme Court but also the appropriations bills. Instead, we are going to pass a short-term resolution. We have campaign finance. It is expected that more than $1.4 billion will be spent in this Presidential race. Congress has done nothing to ensure that ideas and voters, not money, decide elections. We need campaign finance reform. Everybody in this body knows it. But, instead, we continue to ignore the problem that faces this country with campaign finance. Wildfire disaster funding: The way we fight wildfires is broken. If you live in the West, you know that. We are not going to deal with that. We need to permanently fund and reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. No, it is not going to happen. We have the Restoring Rural Residencies Act that takes care of the doctor shortages we have in this country. No, it is not going to happen. We don't have time. We do have time; we just choose not to tackle any of these issues. Year-round Pell grants: We have students who are coming out of college with a mountain of debt. We are not going to deal with that. We have a bill to give regulatory relief to community banks and credit unions. We are not going to debate that on the floor. No, it is not going to happen. We have the Secure Rural Schools initiative and Payment in Lieu of Taxes. Both need our attention. Earlier this year, Senator Crapo and I called on leadership to find a path forward so these counties can have some certainty. Neither is going to happen. Over the past few years we have seen our national security compromised with faulty background checks. We have a solution. We produced legislation that will help prevent inside attacks. It is not going to happen. Do you notice a pattern? Well, the whole country is waiting. We are waiting for Congress to do their job. I just turned 60 years old on August 21. In my lifetime, we have never worked less days in the Senate than we have this year. It is unbelievable. We are leaving everyday Americans hung out to dry. We are leaving without doing our job. We are leaving because of the next election, and this is criminal. There are solutions. This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. The only problem is that we are not in session to deliberate. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record speeches that I had previously given in Montana for four Congressional Medal citations.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today, I wish to honor Gary Booth, a lifelong resident of Billings, Montana, and a decorated Vietnam veteran. I ask that the remarks that I made in Montana at a ceremony honoring Gary Booth be printed in the Record. The material follows: Gary, on behalf of myself, my fellow Montanans, and my fellow Americans, I would like to extend our deepest gratitude for your service to this nation. Gary was born on July 25, 1944, in St. Anthony, Idaho, to Francis and Fern Booth. He was welcomed by his older brother Edwin, and joined by his younger brother William shortly thereafter. His father Francis bought, sold, and transported produce all across the west--an occupation that brought the family to Billings in 1948. So Billings became the town that Gary grew up in, attending the Lockwood School from grades 1-9, before graduating from Billings Senior High in 1962. After high school, he tried his hand at fanning and auto repair, before going back into the family trucking businesses. But he wasn't settled long before he got the call; it was September 30th of 1965 and he was being called for duty. Gary answered the call, but stuck to his principles, enlisting as a conscientious objector. This meant he would protect and serve, while forgoing the aid of a firearm. So he was shipped off to Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas, where he went through basic training, as well as an additional 10 weeks of advance medic training. After that, he joined the Fourth Infantry Division at Fort Louis, in Tacoma, Washington, where he continued to train until his comrades shipped out from Seattle in June of 1966. He and the rest of the Fourth Infantry Division reached the eastern coast of Vietnam about a month later, in late July, arriving at the Port of Qui Nhon (QUINN-YAWN). From there they trekked more than a hundred miles to the west-coast city of Pleiku (PLAY-COO), which would serve as their base of operations as they patrolled the dense jungle spanning the border between Cambodia and Vietnam. This was in November, and for the next few months Gary and his fellow soldiers cycled through weeks of search and destroy missions in the jungles of Pleiku, punctuated by brief stints back at the larger artillery base, where they kept watch and took whatever opportunity they could to ``rest.'' It was towards the end of the day, during one of these search and destroy missions, when the sun was about to set, that Gary and his comrades came across an open clearing in the jungle where they decided to set up camp for the night. It was now February, months had passed since their arrival, and they had fallen into a routine. Part of the company would stay back and set up camp for the night, while a few soldiers--known as ``OP's''--took up observation posts, and two patrol squads headed out to secure a 100-yard perimeter around the clearance. Before the soldiers disbursed, Gary gave everyone a prodigious reminder. ``If anyone needs me,'' he yelled, ``holler `Doc,' instead of `Medic.'' This was because the North Vietnamese had figured out what ``medic'' meant, making the soldier who responded to that call instant high-value targets. With that, the soldiers set off. But just minutes later, a familiar sound rang out. It was the click of a gun being chambered, the only warning the patrol squad received before being ambushed by a battalion four times their size. The basecamp was soon under fire and as the machine gunners took up arms, the others soldiers sought cover behind a sparse line of trees. About 10 minutes into the firefight one of the machine gunners called for help; his weapon had been hit by enemy fire, dislocating the barrel of his gun and propelling shrapnel into his right shoulder. Under heavy fire, Gary ran to the his fellow soldier's aid, bandaging his wounds as the gunner used his bare hand to hold the barrel of his broken gun in place and return enemy fire. After Gary had finished bandaging the gunner's shoulder, he tied another bandage around the gun to help steady the barrel and protect the gunner's hand from the intense heat. Once Gary made his way back to the trees, another soldier began calling for help. This time it was an OP who had been shot in the lower back as he was returning from his observation post. Gary yelled at the man--who had stopped about 50 yards away from him--to take cover behind his tree, but the soldier was too injured to move. So with bullets raining down and mortar bombs going off around him, Gary directed the nearest machine gunners to give him cover as he ran head first into the line of fire to retrieve his fallen comrade. Gary slung the injured man over his back and ran for cover. Once the pair was back behind the trees, Gary went to work bandaging the man's wounds and, once he got the bleeding to stop, called for help to get the man back to basecamp. About 10 minutes later, Gary was called upon again. The machine gunner with the broken barrel had now taken a bullet to the foot. So Gary ran over and was tending to the wound when, all of a sudden, he felt a sharp pain pierce his left leg. He had taken a bullet directly to the femur. His leg was broken so, finding himself immobilized, Gary called for his fellow soldiers to get help. There were a total of five medics dispersed among the platoon, so his comrades pulled him off to the perimeter of the basecamp while he waited for a fellow medic to arrive. The canopy was so dense that air support couldn't reach the camp by helicopter, so the medic put a splint around Gary's leg and covered him with a poncho. All he could do now was wait out the fight. When the fighting finally subsided the next morning, Gary's poncho was covered in shrapnel and debris, but he was still alive. The U.S. had prevailed, but only after eight soldiers had died and 39 more were wounded. Even more would die if the wounded weren't evacuated quickly, so the soldiers went to work clearing space for air support to land. Every soldier carried with him a small amount of C-4, usually in the band of their sock. Each individual's piece was then collected and combined to make an explosive large enough to blow a hole through the jungle's thick canopy. Finally, after surviving hours under siege--without ever setting hands on a firearm--Gary was air lifted out of the battle zone to the nearest base. From there he was shipped off to the Philippines, where he was confined to a body cast for about a week before being transferred to an army hospital in Japan. Gary spent the next three months recovering in Japan, with the help of his younger brother who, in a twist of fate, had been stationed as a medic at the very same place. Eventually, Gary returned to Fort Louis in Tacoma, Washington, where he spent almost a year learning how to walk again. Once he recovered, Gary was medically discharged from the army with 60% disability. He returned to Billings, went into business with his father, and spent the next 43 years in the trucking industry. Gary has been married to his wife Ellen, a fellow Billings native, for 42 years and together they raised their son Christopher, who Gary adopted when he was just three years old. Christopher and his wife Gale now have two sons of their own, making Gary a proud grandfather to Christopher Murphree--who served in Afghanistan as a member of the National Guard--and Donovan Arnold, a boy scout whose troop conducted a beautiful flag ceremony here today. The family all still lives in Billings, where Gary volunteers at his local VFW post--Mark Curtis #6774. He and a group of fellow veterans perform flag ceremonies and 21 Gun Salutes at military funerals throughout the county. Gary has performed at nearly two dozen military funerals since joining the group in January. I now have the profound honor of presenting Gary with his own set of military honors. For his courage and valor in battle, Gary Booth received the: Purple Heart Bronze Star Medal Good Conduct Medal Combat Medic Badge 1st award Republic of Vietnam Campaign Ribbon w/Device Vietnamese Service Medal with 1 bronze service star National Defense Service Medal Gary, these medals serve as a small token of our country's appreciation for your incredible service and profound sacrifice. You are a true American hero. Thank you so much for your service.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I thank the Presiding Officer. GMO Labeling Bill Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak out against the GMO labeling bill we will be considering a little bit later this week or next week and to raise concerns for the millions of American families who want to know and who have the right to know exactly what is in their food. I have come to the floor before to endorse GMO labeling legislation and to oppose efforts to keep folks in the dark when it comes to what they feed their families. This is an issue that impacts each and every one of us. Every day, there is nothing more important than choosing the food we eat. Food provides us with nutrition and energy. Good food helps our kids grow strong and helps us remain healthy as we get older. I strongly believe that when folks decide what food to purchase, they do so and should do so with all the information available to them. Unfortunately, Members of this body want to keep folks in the dark. They don't want consumers to know exactly what is in the food they are eating. This fight is nothing new. In 2013, I was on the floor fighting against a piece of legislation called the Monsanto Protection Act, which gave blanket immunity to major seed companies whose products had been or could be a target of litigation. Earlier this year, I was in this Chamber to fight against the DARK Act, which trampled on the rights of States and consumers alike at the request of the food industry. Once again, the Senate GMO labeling bill provides major food corporations with an out where they can hide behind a complex QR code to prevent folks from knowing if their food contains genetically modified organisms. It brings into question the very question of bioengineering, and it raises concerns about the growing influence agribusiness has on this body. The bill before us raises all these major concerns and many more. Besides keeping folks in the dark and besides telling States they cannot write their own consumer information laws, this bill gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture complete authority to unilaterally interpret and implement the controversial provisions of this bill. To make things worse, this is not a collaborative bill. This bill provides corporate agribusiness with handout after handout, but it really doesn't do a thing for family farm producers and the small mom- and-pop shops, the operations that are the backbone of our farming economy. Quite frankly, it undermines the work of organic producers, and it ignores the folks who purchase organic products. To me, it is clear that this is a one-sided bill--a bill that benefits multinational corporations at the expense of family farmers and ranchers. To be more specific, I want to talk about four major problems I have with this bill. First, this bill mandates that companies that use genetically engineered ingredients disclose that information on the packaging. On the surface, this looks like a step forward, but as we dig a little deeper, the bill allows companies to meet this mandate in three ways: a written label on a package, which would be fine; a symbol created by the USDA, which could also be fine; but then we have this--a QR barcode that folks have to scan using their smartphones to figure out whether there are genetically modified ingredients in the food they are going to buy. Yes, this bill allows companies to meet the disclosure requirement with this--a QR barcode. If you can tell me what that says by looking at it, you are a much smarter man than I. The bill before us today specifically mandates that the words next to the QR code say ``Scan here for more food information.'' Those are the words in the bill. So if folks want to know if their cereal contains commodities that originated in a lab, rather than read it on a package clear as a bell, rather than read the words on a package, they will first have to know that the QR code will provide them with information about whether that product contains GMOs and not just more marketing information or a coupon. They would have to know that the phrase ``more food information'' means information about GMOs--maybe, maybe not. Then they would scan that code into their phones. Hopefully they will have cell service in that grocery store, but what happens if they don't? That is not transparency. That is not the consumer's right to know. They could not tell. If they somehow know what the phrase ``more food information'' means and they are fortunate enough to have Wi-Fi in their grocery store, they will be directed to a Web site, and then maybe they can learn about what is really in the food, potentially genetically engineered products, although it is not clear what else they will have to read about or where that information will be hidden within that Web site. Other companies--maybe those that aren't as big as the big international agribusinesses--will be allowed to hide that important information behind an 800 number. A mom or dad who wants to know what is in their child's soup or bread will have to call many different 800 numbers in the aisles of the grocery store or scan many of these QR codes. Anybody who has ever gone to a grocery store with a small child in tow knows that is not going to happen. Quite frankly, it is probably not even going to happen if you don't have a small child in tow. Between these ridiculous QR codes and the 1-800 numbers, mom or dad could easily end up standing in a grocery store for hours scanning each individual product with a smartphone or dialing an international call center just to find out basic information about what they are going to eat. This is completely ridiculous, a nightmare for consumers, and an illusion of transparency. What if companies were allowed to use QR codes instead of basic nutritional information? What if you had to scan a barcode to find out how much fat is in a bag of chips, how much protein is in a can of beans, or how much vitamin C is in a jug of orange juice, and the only clue you had was ``Scan here for more information''? It is interesting. When I go to a store and buy orange juice, I buy orange juice that is not made from concentrate. That is my choice. I can read it right on the package. I have to tell you, I don't know if that orange juice is any better than stuff that is made from concentrate, but it is written on the package, so I can determine what orange juice I want to buy. So if you don't want to buy food or if you want to buy food with GMOs in it, you get to scan this little doodad up here, this QR code, and then maybe, if you hit the right Web page, you can find out what is in the food. We did this as a Senate. We did this to allow people to know what is in their food, and we actually think this is an effective method to let people know what is in their food. How would folks in Congress react if lobbyists and dark-money campaigns began pushing to get all nutrition labels off our foods, the same way this bill hides origins of our food? I can tell you there would be a ton of folks here on the floor. They would be raising big hell, rather than just a handful who really aren't afraid of Monsanto or the other massive food corporations. Hiding massive information behind barcodes and 800 numbers is totally unacceptable. The Senate should not be in the business of hiding information from consumers. When I grew up, I was told the consumer is always right. We should be empowering those consumers, those American consumers, with more information about the food they purchase, not with less. Don't take it from me--9 out of 10 consumers say they want labeling required for genetically engineered foods. What is the problem with that? It is already done in 64 countries. When you bring up the issue of consumer rights, of the ability of individuals to have some idea where their food comes from, you are told that GMOs are perfectly safe, but that response completely misses the point and insults every single person who has ever asked about the source of their food. What this is really about is consumers' right to know--not with a Mickey Mouse QR code, not with a different 800 number on every package of food you pick up, but with simple words that say that product contains GMO or it doesn't. That will allow the consumer to make his choices. That will allow mothers and fathers around this country to be empowered, not to be controlled. Sixty-four countries, including places you would never ever think of as having transparency--places such as Russia, China, Saudi Arabia-- require GMO labeling. If this bill passes, we are going to say--and it had 68 votes the last time it came to the floor--that we have GMO labeling. That is a joke. We have a Mickey Mouse GMO labeling law. So why is the United States the only developed country in the world that doesn't require an easy-to-read GMO label on its food or an easy symbol that signifies it? There is a one-word answer: money. Here is an example. In 2012, California's Proposition 37 would have required GMO labeling. Opponents of that labeling bill spent $45 million to defeat that proposition. Supporters of that labeling bill spent about $7 million. In fact, Monsanto alone spent $8 million. They outspent the supporters alone. That was in 2012. In 2013, Washington State had an initiative called 522 that required GMO labeling. More than $20 million was spent in opposition. About $7 million was spent in support of the campaign, with $1.6 million coming from Washington residents. These campaigns and lobbying organizations have spent nearly one-half billion dollars to prevent commonsense labeling standards, and we have caved to that. If these companies are proud of GMO products, they should label them and make it a marketing tool. Instead, they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat commonsense measures that 90 percent of the public of this country supports because they are afraid the word ``GMO'' would hurt their billion-dollar profits. I am not asking for a skull and crossbones on the package. This isn't about the safety or health of these products. It is about transparency. It is about the public's right to know. It is about putting families ahead of corporations. It is about valuing the consumer's right to know over lobbyists in their slick suits and their influence here. They are denying consumers an easy-to-read national GMO label standard. Why? They are denying folks the transparency they need to make the best decisions for their families. It makes no sense to me. The second issue I have with this bill is the way it changes the definition of GMOs in a way that will not be good for consumers. To me, it is pretty simple. If a crop is found to develop in nature, then God had his hand in making it. Products that have been genetically modified or engineered in a lab, well, those products are made by man. They are genetically engineered. In this bill, the definition of GMO is very different. This definition is very dangerous, and it will be a major mistake if it becomes a new national standard. As the bill currently reads, the term ``bioengineering'' requires food to contain genetic material that has been modified by rDNA techniques, and for which the modification could not otherwise happen through conventional breeding or be found in nature. That sounds harmless enough, but there are some huge problems with this definition. First, rDNA techniques are not the only way we modify plants and animals. Scientists can use cell fusion, macroinjection, gene deletion, gene editing, and that is just what has been invented today. Tomorrow there will be other things they can do to manipulate the genes. The problem is, the definition requires the food product to contain genetic material that has been modified by rDNA. That is it. There are a handful of products that are so refined, the final product would not be listed as GMO, even when the original plant is GMO--soybean oil, high-fructose corn syrup, to give an example. So as not to get in the weeds too far, organics certify a process. They certify the process a plant goes through. If you don't have water- soluble fertilizers, if you don't spray it with herbicides, and you have a soil-building program and good crop rotation and all those kinds of things, you can get certified as being organic. That would mean, the way I read this--and I am not a lawyer, but I will bet you we will find out in courts because we will have a lot of lawyers with smiles on their faces if we get this passed--you could take GMO corn, for example, raise it under organic standards, because the oil does not show it is modified rDNA, and it could be organic. That means Roundup Ready soybeans, corn, could ultimately be excluded from labeling of the GMO QR code. Folks will be purchasing products they think are GMO-free, when nothing could be further than the truth. I am not talking about obscure products. I am talking about very common ingredients. This is a huge loophole and one that was created on purpose. And why? Because if you control the food supply, you control the people. In this country right now, we have very limited competition in the marketplace. When you sell your grain or your cattle, it doesn't matter. There is not much competition out there because there are just a few major multinational agribusiness companies that are your market. So that is controlled. You buy inputs for your crops--fertilizers, sprays--there are just a few companies. There is no competition in that. They haven't had control of the seed until recently, and now they are getting control of it in a big way. The farmer always had control of his own seed. He was always able to keep his own seed and use it the next year--not anymore. This bill will promote that going into the future, and we ask why people are leaving rural America. We ask why towns are drying up. We ask why farms are going away. All we have to do is look at this body and you can answer those questions. The GMO labeling bill--this GMO labeling bill--will exclude some of the most prevalent GMO products in our marketplaces. Do you think that was done by accident? I think not. The second part of the definition refers to modifications that can be found in nature--extremely vague, and it also threatens transparency. But you know what. There are some natural gene modifications that happen in bacteria--not plants, not animals, in bacteria. Under this definition, that provides another unnecessary loophole that will impact consumers because it says it is OK if it is found in nature. So we have a QR code and we have a really bad definition. By the way, they could have used the other definition--the one that is standard across the world. They chose not to. They put this definition in and said: Oh, the good thing about this is, it only applies to this bill. So it is OK. Don't worry about it. The third problem I have with this bill is, it gives the USDA incredible rulemaking power. It allows them to determine what percentage of GMO ingredients would be on the label. It gives the Department the power to establish a national standard with that information. If that isn't enough, the USDA then will design all forms of food disclosure, whether it is text, symbol, or electronic digital link. The Department also must provide alternative labeling options for small packages. Finally, the agency must consider establishing consistency between the labeling standard in this bill and the Organic Food Productions Act of 1990. Now, why in the heck would that be in there? For the very same reason I talked about earlier. You could literally have a GMO plant be raised under organic conditions, and because of this bill, it could be certified organic. All of this power we just talked about would be given to unelected bureaucrats in an office building here in Washington, DC--quite a large office building. They are going to make the decisions, and we in production agriculture are going to have to live with it. The last point I want to make is how this bill is going to negatively impact the organic industry. I know folks have come to the floor to talk about how it is going to be great for organics. The truth is, the organic industry is one of the bright spots in agriculture, quite frankly. For the last 30 years, it has grown between 10 and 30 percent a year. As a matter of fact, it grew 11 percent last year, with $43 billion in sales. That isn't much in terms of the overall food system, but to organics it has moved quite impressively along. So I would ask: What good does this bill do for organics? I will tell you what it does. It states that products not required to label GMOs don't automatically qualify for non-GMO status. Why not? I mean, that is kind of a given. It also states that organic certification is a means of verifying non-GMO claims in the marketplace. Look, I have been through organic certifications. This farm is organic. I have been through organic certifications now for 30 years next year, and I can tell you one of the first questions the inspector asks when he comes on the farm is this: Where did you get your seed and is it GMO? Because GMOs are flatly--flatly--forbidden in the organic system. So what they are saying is what we already have; that organic certification is a means of verifying non-GMO claims. The fact is, if I used GMO plants, I would not be organic and neither would anybody else in production agriculture who uses GMO plants. So that is a biggie-- gives us what we already have. It clarifies that the narrow definition of GMOs and biotechnology in this bill--remember that definition we had up a minute ago--is only applicable to labeling--only applicable to this bill--and not other relevant regulations, like the organic rule, which is what we already have. This bill falls drastically short. I know there are trade organizations, such as the Organic Trade Association, and I know there are big companies out there that have said: This is perfect. Go ahead and move forward. I am telling you they haven't read the bill. They haven't looked at the requirements. They haven't looked at hiding behind a QR code. They haven't looked at the definition and what its real impact could be. They haven't looked at giving the USDA incredible latitude. Then, when it is all done, we have to live with it. In the end, the result will be that this country will have a different production system, I believe. I hope this has positive impacts on production agriculture. As I look at legislation we pass around here, I ask myself: Is this going to help revitalize rural America or is this going to continue the relocation of people and smalltown America going away? I have said many times on this floor, this is a great country, and one of the reasons it is great is because we have had a great public education system and we have had family farm agriculture. I believe, if we lose either one of those, this country will change and it will change for the worse. I think this piece of legislation is not a step in the right direction for family farm agriculture. Look, this is a picture of my farm. My grandfather came to this area from the Red River Valley in 1910. When he came out, the place didn't look like this. It was grass. In fact, this wasn't his homestead. He traded my great uncle a team of horses for this place. There wasn't anything there. There used to be an old house that sat here, the homestead shack. It was a pretty nice old house. That is what he built first. Then, after he patented in 1915, he built this barn in 1916. Now, you have to remember, back then they had nails and hammers. That is it. They didn't have any pneumatics or hydraulics. He and his neighbors got together and built that barn in 1916. It was colder than old Billy out, but they had to have that barn because that barn was where they had their animals. It was farmed with horses then. Unfortunately, 2 years after he built it, a tornado came through, a cyclone, and flattened it. He built it again in 1919. He rebuilt the doggone thing. He just got out there, didn't have anything but a bunch of grass, and put all this money--and that is a pretty good-sized barn. By the way, that blew down so he rebuilt it. Then, in 1920, they had a drought and he had to move back to North Dakota because they were starving to death. My mom was born back in North Dakota that year, in 1920, and then they moved back a couple years later. They survived the Dirty Thirties. My folks took over in the early 1940s. Dad built that butcher shop. That is where this happened. We put up the shop here, which is equivalent to this. This is where we take care of our equipment now. This farm today is 1,800 acres. It was 1,200 acres for a good many years. We were able to add another 600 acres to it 20 years ago. This farm is about one-third the size of the average farm in Eastern Montana and has supported two families for its entire life, with the exception of the first 20 years and with the exception of when my mom passed in 2009. My dad passed 5 years earlier. It is a great place. It is part of who I am. It is bills like this-- not the Dirty Thirties, not the Great Depression, not the attack on Pearl Harbor, not the mass exodus of the 1980s--that will remove my family from this farm after over 100 years. So when we take up pieces of legislation like this and they are not good pieces of legislation--and we all think this is a great country. It is a great country. We just celebrated our 240th anniversary. When we take up pieces of legislation like this and say ``It will be all right; things will get better,'' guess what. Things don't get better. And things aren't getting better in rural America. The reason is that we are getting swallowed up by agribusiness. We don't make a move anymore without agribusiness. Let me give an example. Take your product to the marketplace; you have a couple of people who will bid on it. Go buy your inputs; you have a couple people who will buy it. It will not be long, folks, before we will be paying taxes on the land, and we will be providing the labor, and the profits will go to the big guys--the guys who can never get enough. This bill will help facilitate that happening. I fully anticipate that, come Monday or whenever we vote on this, there will be enough votes to pass this because a lot of the folks have read the propaganda put out that you have to have this kind of stuff to feed the world. That may be true. I have never thought that, but it may be true. But the truth is, shouldn't the consumer at least know what is on the food they are eating? Shouldn't they at least have a clue? Shouldn't they at least be given that right in the greatest country in the world? Shouldn't we have more transparency than Russia, not less? We will see what happens on Monday or whenever we vote on the GMO bill. I do appreciate Senator Stabenow's work on this bill. Unfortunately, it falls woefully short on what we need in this country as far as transparency on food. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, before we start, do I need unanimous consent to speak for 15 or 20 minutes?

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, it is the end of June and mosquitos are everywhere. That means the danger of the Zika virus is increasing. All but five States have at least one reported case of the Zika virus. Just today, a baby was born in the United States with microcephaly because of the Zika virus. This is a serious crisis that requires serious action. That is why I was so disappointed to see the majority insert language that would limit access to contraception, a key component of a strategy to fight Zika, but this bill denies women the ability to get birth control services from their doctors or from primary care clinics. Limiting access to contraception while fighting a disease we know can be transmitted sexually is ridiculous, counterintuitive, and downright dangerous. This approach unnecessarily endangers women across the country. Why on Earth would the Republicans--with a public health crisis looming--insert a provision that is not only bad policy, but that they knew Democrats could not support? One reason: politics. Turning emergency research funding into a political football is irresponsible, and I cannot support it. Women, men, and children need to be protected against Zika, and this bill undermines those efforts. As mosquito season continues and the danger of Zika increases, we need serious legislation that addresses this public health crisis, not partisan gamesmanship. But Zika funding is not the only place this bill falls short. This conference report cuts $500 million from the bipartisan Senate VA Appropriations bill. The Senate bill cleared the Senate 89-8, a truly bipartisan bill. In the U.S. Senate, I imagine we couldn't even get 89 people to agree on what color the sky is, much less an appropriations bill, but here, we have one. The Democratic conferees went to conference with open ears and an open mind. Things started off okay, but Republican leadership inserted themselves into the process, and it quickly became clear that they had no interest in crafting a bipartisan deal. Getting a deal requires two parties to at least talk to each other. But once leadership got involved, Republicans did not even return our phone calls after last weekend. This conference report was negotiated in private with only Republican Members in the room. They took the chainsaw to the Senate's bipartisan proposal that would have given the VA the resources it needs to give our vets the care they have earned. The conference report before the Senate would put the VA $653 million below what the VA says it needs to get the job done. Veterans across the country and in my home State of Montana are waiting for action, and these harmful cuts will leave the VA with just enough to try and address veterans' needs. And let's be clear, ``just enough'' isn't good enough for our veterans. This bill cuts money out of medical service accounts. These are the very accounts that are used to pay doctors, nurses, and for medical equipment. Making it harder for the VA to administer care is irresponsible, and this bill would leave VA medical centers scrambling to provide services for thousands of veterans. Compared to what the Senate passed--with 89 votes earlier this year-- this bill cuts $250 million for facility maintenance of VA hospitals and clinics. I have toured these clinics. In Missoula, MT, we have a VA clinic that is far over capacity. Patients are forced to double and triple-up in rooms, ruining any semblance of patient privacy. Doctors and nurses are forced to have conversations that should be confidential in front of other patients. Sixty percent of VHA facilities are more than 50 years old, and they have over $10 billion in code deficiencies. Our veterans deserve better than being treated in third-rate facilities. This type of cut is exactly the partisan game playing that shows this bill was never meant as a compromise, but rather it is just a catalyst for cuts to make the VA less effective. These cuts aren't designed to improve care; they are designed to balance the budget on the backs of our veterans. If Republicans had come to the table willing to play ball, we could swallow these cuts if real improvements were made to how the VA is run, but these cuts will only compound the problems at the VA and are unacceptable without genuine reform. This was not how a conference should operate; not a single vote was ever taken by the conferees on VA related items. They were simply shoved into the bill. The unfortunate byproduct of this partisanship was that a bipartisan approach to VA funding and policy priorities was abandoned at the end and left VA short of what I believe to be responsible funding levels. I invite my Republican colleagues in the House--and one in particular in the Senate--to look at the Veterans First Act, that cleared committee unanimously, that takes a real shot at reforming the VA, and is a good example of what bipartisan compromise can look like. The VA is struggling, and cutting costs and not addressing real issues across the VA is not what our veterans deserve. I cannot support this bill because it does not support our veterans. We have 3 months before the next fiscal year begins--3 months before the VA runs out of money. I am ready to work with folks on both sides to see if we can agree on a plan that gives our veterans more than ``good enough.'' We have done it once this year, and we can do it again, but we need to get moving.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Max DiPietro, an Air Force Fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the junior Senator from Montana. I appreciate his coming to the floor today. I rise today with a heavy heart. Since I first heard the horrible news about the senseless act of terrorism in Orlando, the victims, the partners, and the families have been at the center of my thoughts and prayers. But thoughts and prayers are not enough. It is long past time for the Senate to come together and have a conversation about what steps need to be taken to put an end to this violence and hatred. We cannot continue to be crippled by inaction. The Senate needs to come together to strengthen our national security. After attacks like Orlando, we hear folks say ``Never again,'' but actions really do speak louder than words. It is time that we work together to try to prevent these senseless acts of terror and violence. That conversation begins with our national security and what needs to be done to keep our families and our communities safe. There are actions we can take right now to bolster our national security. There is no question that we must pass legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of terrorists. We absolutely do need to secure our borders. And we need to continue to crack down on insider threats by reforming our security clearance process. Intolerance and hate have no place in this country, and as elected leaders, we have a responsibility to ensure that every American can live their life each day free from fear. Veterans First Act Mr. President, this Nation has made a sacred promise to the men and women who have served in our Armed Forces. These folks answered a call to duty, and they made selfless sacrifices to protect the freedoms we all enjoy. These heroes stood up for us, and now it is time for the Senate to stand up for them. Two years ago, when reports surfaced that veterans were dying while waiting to receive care at the VA, the Senate acted swiftly, and we passed legislation to build the capacity of the VA to better meet the needs of veterans now and into the future. Also included in that bill was the Veterans Choice Program, which allowed more veterans to seek care in their own community when they were unable to get timely care from the VA. Unfortunately, the Choice Program is broken. We have heard this from veterans and community leaders, from veteran service organizations, from Republicans and from Democrats. The intent of the Choice Program was a good one--to get veterans care more quickly--but the rollout has been disastrous, causing far too many veterans to wait even longer for an appointment. But because of the leadership of Chairman Isakson and Ranking Member Blumenthal, the Veterans' Affairs Committee came together in May and approved the Veterans First Act, which includes provisions that I and Senator Burr authored to fix the Choice Program. It also includes critical provisions to hold the VA accountable, increase veterans access to care both inside and outside the VA, and better deliver on the commitment this Nation has made to the folks who have served. Since this bill was unanimously passed out of committee back on May 16, it has fallen victim to politics as usual, and a combination of anonymous holds and the majority leader's decision not to bring it to the floor have put this bipartisan piece of legislation, this good piece of legislation for our veterans, in limbo. And now there are only 21 days left until the Senate is set to recess for nearly 2 months. I am concerned that the clock is running out and that this bipartisan bill will fall victim to the Senate's inaction. We cannot let business as usual here in Washington, DC, derail critically needed reforms. Veterans will not and should not accept excuses for the Senate not acting. This is a good bill. It is a bill that gives the VA the flexibility to work directly with community providers to connect veterans to the care they need so that the VA does not need to work through a middleman. This bill also provides the budget flexibility necessary to ensure veterans are routed to care in a manner that makes the most sense for them. It imposes stricter rules to ensure the VA is reimbursing community providers in a more timely manner. It also includes critical provisions that I helped author to ensure the VA is able to more quickly fill leadership vacancies at VA medical facilities. That is why today I am calling on the Senate to put politics aside, put personal agendas aside, and get this bill to the floor for debate and for an up-or-down vote. The millions of veterans who are still being forced to wait more than 30 days to schedule an appointment deserve that vote. The veterans who are still kept on long wait lists deserve that vote. And the folks who have sacrificed so much to protect and defend this country deserve that vote. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, universal, safe, and consistent trucking regulations are vital to all aspects of the trucking industry and to all users of the national highway system. Ensuring highway safety must remain a priority of this body. It also remains critical that this body maintain predictable safety laws to sustain efficient outcomes for truckers, trucking companies, the manufacturers and growers of the goods that trucks transport, and the customers who buy the products. Congress determined years ago that a uniform system of Federal trucking rules would lead to safer and more productive outcomes than a 50-State patchwork of trucking regulations, as goods are often transported across State lines. Despite Congress's intentions, we are seeing various State trucking rules being implemented across the country that stray from the Federal guidelines. We need to figure out how to address this. We need to make sure that we have commonsense rules that don't change every time a driver crosses a State line while continuing to protect truck drivers and road users from unsafe situations. I think we have got a little more work to do before we are ready for a solution, but I pledge to work with all who are willing and maybe we can figure something out in the coming months. Thank you. Maritime Security Program

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Selmer T. Leland, a decorated World War I veteran and longtime resident of Kalispell, MT. Unfortunately Selmer is no longer with us, so I will be presenting his son, Orland Leland, with the medals he earned for his heroic service during World War I. Orland, on behalf of myself, my fellow Montanans, and my fellow Americans, I would like to acknowledge your father's remarkable sacrifice and service to this Nation and thank you for your unwavering commitment to keeping his legacy alive. Selmer was born on April 30, 1894, in Abercrombie, ND, to Isak and Sanna Leland. He grew up alongside his seven siblings on their family farm in North Dakota. When Selmer was 8, the family moved to Canada. Later, when he grew old enough, Selmer ventured out on his own to Montana, becoming a farmer in Big Sandy, before enlisting in the army at the age of 23. It was in October of 1917 when Selmer joined the American Expeditionary Forces in France as a private of Company G, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Brigade, 1st Division. Selmer was shipped off, and by May of 1918, he had earned his first Purple Heart, after enduring an onslaught of mustard gas in weeks leading up to the Battle of Cantigny. The attack cost him a lung and resulted in lifelong respiratory issues. Just 10 weeks later, Selmer took a bullet to the shoulder in the Second Battle of Marne, earning him a bronze oakleaf cluster to adorn his Purple Heart. He also sustained shrapnel wounds to his chest and, as his son Orland proudly tells it, he died, more than 60 years later, with that bullet still in his arm. Despite these two devastating injuries, Selmer persevered, spending another year overseas, even after the war had ended, as a member of the American occupation forces in Germany. When he finally returned to the States, in September of 1919, his company was invited to Washington, DC, to meet President Woodrow Wilson, so he could thank them personally for their service. Eventually, Selmer moved back to his family's homestead in Canada to farm again. This is where he met the love of his life, Clara. Clara was a Kalispell girl, born and raised, who was visiting family up in Canada when she met Selmer. The two fell in love, and, in February of 1924, they returned to Kalispell to get married. By December, they had their first son, Robert Leland, who followed in his father's footsteps by joining the Army during WWII and fighting in the Battle of the Bulge. Robert eventually had five kids: Marvin, Melvin, Shirley, Mark, and Robert, Jr., who went on to serve in Vietnam. Both Robert and Robert, Jr., have since passed on, but their generations of service won't soon be forgotten. After spending some time in the Pacific Northwest, the family eventually settled down in Kalispell, where Selmer spent his career as a sawmill worker until retiring at the age of 65, but his work was far from done. After retiring from the sawmill, Selmer became a logger, heading to work every day in the forests well into his seventies. Twenty years after the birth of their first son, Clara and Selmer, now 50, welcomed their second son, Orland, who I have the distinct pleasure of being with today. Both Orland and his wife, Janet, were born and raised in Kalispell and still reside here today. Orland, who was a firefighter for 30 years, and Janet, who is the volunteer director at the Kalispell Regional Medical Center, have both continued this family's legacy of dedicated public service. They also have five children--Dianna, Kevin, Tammy, Sam, and Curt-- some of whom are here with us today. Thank you all for being here to celebrate Selmer's life, legacy, and history. I have the profound honor of presenting Selmer's son Orland Leland with his father's WWI medals: Purple Heart with one bronze oakleaf cluster; World War I Victory Medal with Montdidier Noyon, Aisne-Marne, St. Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne Battle Clasps and France Service Clasp; and World War I Victory Button--Silver. Orland, these medals serve as a small token of our country's appreciation for your father's heroic service and profound sacrifice. He is truly an American hero, and we have the utmost gratitude for his service.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, as we begin consideration of the fiscal year 2017 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, I want to start by thanking the chairman of the subcommittee and his staff. The process Chairman Kirk and I put into place was fair, inclusive, and open, and I appreciate that he went out of his way to incorporate input from me, my team, and Senators from this side of the aisle. This bill does right by our brave service men and women by honoring our Nation's commitment to veterans, Active-Duty military, and their families. We owe these folks our gratitude for their selfless sacrifice to freedom and democracy. As a result of last year's bipartisan budget agreement, we are on the same page this year in terms of top-line funding numbers. This level of funding has allowed us to make critical investments in military construction, veterans programs, as well as Arlington National Cemetery and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. For VA, this bill provides $102 billion in mandatory funding for veterans' benefits--$102 billion--and includes an additional $103.9 billion in fiscal year 2018 advance funding to ensure that there is not a lapse in getting disability compensation and education benefits to our veterans. For VA's discretionary accounts, including the Veterans Health Administration, the bill appropriates $74.9 billion. That is $3.4 billion more than the Department has this year. Within that amount, we are able to target increased funding for several key priorities for veterans. That includes health care, disability claims and appeals processing, medical and prosthetic research, and family caregiver support. That means the VA will be able to aggressively pursue critical veteran-centered research into a host of medical conditions, including PTSD and traumatic brain injury--the unseen wounds of war that are so difficult to both identify and treat. It also means the VA will have additional resources to meet the growing demand of caregivers who are providing critical, family-centered, long-term care for our veterans, and it will allow VBA to hire 300 new claims processors and 240 additional employees for the Board of Veterans Appeals, all focused on reducing the appeals backlog--something Senator Sullivan and I are working on over on the authorizing side. These funds will complement that work. The bill before us also includes a new medical community care account that consolidates the various sources of funding that connect veterans to care in their own communities. The creation of this new account is extremely important in providing better oversight over a program that is critical for our veterans, particularly those in rural areas where services through the VA are often unavailable. It is also a key component in ongoing efforts to consolidate and streamline the number of different programs the VA has to get veterans care in their local communities. That is something a number of us are working on in a bipartisan manner in the Veterans' Affairs Committee. On the MILCON side of the ledger, the bill before us also delivers. We have provided increased funding for a number of unfunded MILCON requirements identified by the services. Given the severe constraints on the budget, funding for military construction is squeezed more tightly now than ever. It is not just the cost of trying to maintain a deteriorating building, which in itself is substantial, it is also the impact that effort has on training, readiness, and retention of personnel--the very areas DOD is struggling to reinforce. Shortchanging military construction is not a cost-effective or sustainable defense strategy over the long haul. That is why I am glad this bill provides nearly $500 million over the budget requested for unfunded priorities. I am pleased the majority chose not to put forward controversial amendments on this bill during committee consideration. The bill that funds veterans health care and our military installations should not be a vehicle for politics. Our veterans and our servicemembers deserve a clean bill, so we need to avoid the ugly stuff on this bill. I have a lot more to say about this bill as it is considered over the next, hopefully, several days. For now, I reiterate my thanks to the folks on the majority side, as well as Vice Chairman Mikulski, for their efforts in getting us where we are today. Lastly, I remind all of our colleagues that we are open for business. So if there are amendments you are thinking about, get them filed and get them to our staffs so we can move forward. Amendments at the eleventh hour are never good, so get them in early so we can consider them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Fred D. De Roche, a decorated World War II veteran, Blackfeet tribal member, and lifelong resident of Browning, MT. Fred was killed in action, bravely defending this Nation, so I will be presenting his son, Art De Roche, with the medals his father earned during World War II. Art, on behalf of myself, my fellow Montanans, and my fellow Americans, I would like to acknowledge your father's gallant service to this Nation and thank you for the sacrifices you have made, losing your father at such a young age. Fred was born on April 3, 1924, to Charlie and Annie De Roche in Browning, MT. He grew up with many siblings, raising cows and horses on his family's ranch on the Blackfeet reservation. He eventually met his wife, Mildred Underbear, and soon after getting married, the couple discovered they were pregnant. As many of you know, Native Americans have always exhibited a deep and profound love of country, enlisting in the military at higher rates than any other ethnic group. Fred was no different. In fact, Fred had enlisted in the Army earlier that year, alongside his cousin, Billy Wolftail. In the ultimate act of patriotism, Fred deployed before his son, Art, was born on February 11, 1943. Fred was sent to Belgium, where he served as a private in the Headquarters Company's 39th Infantry Regiment, 9th Infantry Division. It was there that Fred earned his Bronze Star Medal on October 15, 1944, for meritorious achievement in active ground combat. A little more than 2 months later, on December 21, 1944, Fred fought his last battle in courageous service to this great Nation. He was awarded a Purple Heart for his valor and bravery. On Memorial Day 2015, the Blackfeet Nation was honored at the Montana Veterans Memorial in Great Falls. I was proud to be the main speaker at that event, where 162 tiles were added to the walls of the memorial, in recognition of military veterans from the Blackfeet Nation. Mr. Fred DeRoche was one of the names added that day. Fred died in battle, but his spirit and legacy live on in his son, Art, who I have the distinct pleasure of being here with today. Art was raised by his great-grandmother, Rosie Big Beaver, on the Blackfeet reservation. He grew up in Browning, married his wife, Shirley, and together, they raised three beautiful children here: Arthur, Jr., David James, and Jolene Anne. Thank you all for being here to celebrate Fred's life and legacy of service to our State, the Blackfeet people, and this great Nation. I have the profound honor of presenting Fred's son, Art De Roche, with his father's medals: Bronze Star; Purple Heart; European-African- Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with one Bronze Service Star; World War II Victory Medal; Combat Infantryman Badge; Belgian Fourragere; and Honorable Service Lapel Button WWII Art, these medals serve as a small token of our country's appreciation for your father's heroic service and profound sacrifice. He is truly an American hero, and we are eternally grateful for his service.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, there are a lot of people in this country who work very, very hard. We are known in this country as a people who work hard. Montanans are no exception. We have some of the hardest working folks I know who live in that great State. Whether it is a farmer preparing the spring crop or a fishing guide preparing for the upcoming tourist season, my constituents know what a long day's work looks like. In fact, many of my constituents work two jobs so they can put food on the table and a roof over their head and can save for their kid's college education. These folks don't wake up in the morning and say: Hey, I think I will take the year off and just sit it out. That is why it is no surprise that when I went home for the March recess, Montanans were overwhelmingly disgusted with the majority's decision to refuse to do their job. Constituent after constituent asked me what the heck we were doing back here. Local editorial boards even chimed in. The Billings Gazette, my State's largest newspaper, tore the majority to shreds, saying that those who crow about making Washington work better are intentionally sabotaging the system, making it work worse. The Montana Standard, in ``Butte, America,'' accused Senators of ``shirking their constitutional responsibilities'' and denounced their tactics as ``a pretty shoddy way to do business.'' If that wasn't enough, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle described the crusade as ``nothing but an abdication of responsibility and another example of the kind of playground-level obstruction that has soured so many Americans on Congress and contributed to the divisive meltdown in the race to the GOP nomination for President.'' Now here we are. It has been 33 days since Judge Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court--33 days and counting. Yet there are no hearings in sight, no chance for the American people to have their voices heard through their elected representatives, no chance to ask tough questions of the nominee. This week we will hear the majority leader talk about regular order with respect to appropriations bills. But if regular order is good enough for appropriations bills, it is good enough for a Supreme Court nomination. The bottom line is this. The American people are as frustrated as I am. They are fed up with the obstructionism, and they want Congress to do its job. So let's have a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then let's have a vote in the Senate. As the Montana Standard says, anything less than that is ``a pretty shoddy way to do business.'' I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from North Dakota for working on this important issue that in fact speaks across this country but especially in rural America. Senator Hoeven and I are on the floor working this afternoon to provide a voice to those who feel the well-being of ordinary Americans is being taken advantage of. These are folks who are honest and work hard and play by the rules, but they find themselves victims of an unchecked industry with too many bad actors. That is right. They are not all bad actors, but some are. The folks who survive the fight of a lifetime are waking up the next morning only to find themselves in a new fight--a fight to keep their home and their financial well-being. In rural America, we are seeing more and more troubling reports of families losing nearly everything to rising air ambulance bills. In my home State of Montana, over the past 10 years, we have seen more out- of-State independent and for-profit air ambulance companies in operation. These companies are moving into my State, and they are not affiliated with local hospitals. They do not always have contracts with insurance companies, and they are taking financial advantage of families who are in crisis--families who may be forced to cash out their retirement accounts, drain their life savings, and even sell their homes to cover air ambulance bills that can climb up to $100,000. This has been well-documented in the State of Montana. Occurrences of people getting billed enormous sums of money after an air ambulance trip have been well-documented. So what is the upshot of all this? The upshot is we are a rural State. Oftentimes you can't get to a hospital in time by road, so you have to call an air ambulance. If you call the wrong one, you end up with a bill you can't pay. So people have to make literally life-and- death choices at a time when they shouldn't have to. Oftentimes, because of this experience they are saying: You know what. We are between a rock and a hard place. We will take a chance. The wife or the spouse may be purple because they can't breathe, but they say: We will take a chance. They will pile in the car and drive an hour to the hospital and hopefully they will survive. A child may come in from an accident, having potentially lost a limb, who may be bleeding profusely, but they say: We will take a chance and not call the air ambulance. This system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. It is broken for the patients, it is broken for the providers, and right now in this country there is no tool to address it. We have a solution. Senator Hoeven and I have an amendment to tackle this issue and put it on the FAA bill and get it done. Our amendment would provide States the ability to decide whether they want to create rules regarding air ambulance rates and services. Right now, States are prohibited from regulating air ambulances, but families have made it clear that something must be done to prevent these companies from raking families over and collecting exorbitant bills. A one-size-fits- all solution from Washington, DC, is not the answer, and that is why the good Senator from North Dakota and I believe each State should have the opportunity to address this growing problem in their own way. Our amendment will provide incentives for these air ambulance companies to be better neighbors, as we like to say in Montana. It will encourage them to work with local hospitals and insurance providers to ensure that the lifesaving services they provide will not cause that family to lose their home. This amendment is supported by State officials across the Nation and by folks on both sides of the aisle. With that, I ask Senator Hoeven to yield for a question.

Mr. TESTER. Why is this legislation so important to Senator Hoeven and his constituents in North Dakota?

Mr. TESTER. It certainly is, and I can say that what we have heard in Montana is that there is a problem out there. We need some help. Last summer, I had a woman by the name of Christina from Missoula, MT, who called me. She and her husband both work full time. She pays $1,000 a month for her health insurance. She was being responsible, doing everything she was supposed to do, but an emergency struck, which could happen to anybody, and her daughter needed to be airlifted to Seattle, WA. The cost of the flight was the last thing on Christina's mind. She cared only about the health of her daughter. In the back of her mind, she knew she had health insurance, so she knew she would be OK. When Christina and her daughter returned from Seattle, they found a bill waiting for them for $85,000, a little bit less than twice the average that an American earns every year. Think about this--getting a bill from a service that you had no choice but to take and then finding out that it cost you twice as much as you make in 1 calendar year. Unfortunately, the story of Christina is not unique. Each year, more and more Montanans have a story exactly like Christina's. That is why it is critical that we get this problem addressed through this bipartisan amendment that will provide certainty and justice for families like hers. These folks really have nowhere else to turn. If we can get this amendment on the FAA bill--and I know we are working with the committee right now, tweaking it, trying to make it work so that people are more at ease with it--we can begin to address this issue that has haunted too many families. I would just tell you this. I had an accident when I was young, and it wasn't the kind of accident that was life threatening. My folks had only a 15-minute drive to get to the hospital. I could tell you that if I had been a little bit more unlucky and we had put it into the 21st century and my folks would have had to get an air ambulance--which is absolutely necessary in rural America sometimes; it is necessary depending on what problem has happened--it would have put the family in a position where they literally could have lost the farm. This isn't right. This isn't what this country is about. All it takes is just a little bit of tweaking, a little bit of knowledge, a little bit of transparency, and that is what this amendment does. I think we can get this problem fixed, and it is simply the right thing to do. I want to thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership and his hard work on this issue. I yield back to Senator Hoeven.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following remarks that will be read on my behalf at the funeral of Dr. Joe Medicine Crow today be printed in the Record.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Correct.

Mr. TESTER

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