Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to honor Thomas Rockroads, Jr., a veteran of the Vietnam war. On behalf of all Montanans and all Americans, I would like to thank Mr. Rockroads for his service to our State and to our Nation. It is my privilege to share Thomas's story for the official Senate Record. Thomas Rockroads, Jr., was born on December 21, 1948, in Crow Agency, MT. His father worked in sawmills in both Kirby and Lame Deer and was a ranch hand and coal miner in Lame Deer. His mother worked for many years at the Northern Hotel before coming home to the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. He spent his childhood in Busby and attended Busby High School until joining the Army his junior year. In September of 1968, he volunteered for the Army Airborne Infantry, and by September of 1969, he found himself jumping out of helicopters and into the highlands of Vietnam. Thomas was a member of the 173rd Airborne Brigade, which was stationed in the hot, humid Tiger Mountains of Vietnam's Central Highlands. Their responsibilities included rescuing and evacuating ground forces, as well as setting up perimeters for operations. They were right in the thick of things, and, as Thomas once put it, ``If there was a hot spot where reinforcements were needed . . . we were there.'' On more than one occasion, this proved to be an important but harrowing position to be in. One night, when the brigade was charged with setting up a perimeter on a hillside, Thomas and his comrades felt particularly concerned. They knew the area was likely heavily booby-trapped, so they proceeded with extra caution. Their mission was to intercept the North Vietnamese forces headed in their direction, and after establishing a perimeter, they were allowed a few hours of rest before being put on high alert. A few hours later, while he was trying to get some sleep, Thomas suddenly heard a blast, and he was thrown nearly a dozen feet from his makeshift tent. Thomas quickly realized that someone had set off a booby trap, but before he could process much else, a medic began calling his name and he rushed over to help. Thomas worked with the medic to care for his fellow soldier, but shortly thereafter the man died in Thomas's arms. A few days later, Thomas and his brigade found themselves under siege again--this time, without cover, they came face to face with enemy soldiers. The North Vietnamese troops, equipped with an anti-aircraft gun and hiding inside an irrigation trench, began rapid firing on Thomas and his platoon. Knowing they needed air support, Thomas headed right toward the anti-aircraft gun--as long as it was operable, American helicopters couldn't access the area. However, his M16 was jammed, so under heavy fire, he had to dislodge the trapped bullets and replace them with a new magazine. He and a fellow solider finally located the enemy's weapon at the far end of a hedgerow and headed back into the firestorm with one aim--to disarm it. Before they could reach their target, an enemy solider intercepted them, lobbing a grenade directly at Thomas and his comrade. They both ran for cover, and thankfully the grenade failed to detonate, but mere seconds after that, another soldier charged them, firing wildly at Thomas and his platoon. The soldier was not more than 10 feet away from Thomas when he finally went down. Thomas returned to Busby, MT, a full 365 days after his deployment. He remarkably didn't sustain a single scratch. But like many of his fellow veterans, despite his lack of visible wounds, Thomas has struggled with the unseen wounds of war. Thirty-five years after coming back from Vietnam, he was formally diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite this often debilitating struggle, Thomas has spent the last 30 years working for Western Energy's Rosebud Mine at Colstrip and raising two daughters and a son with his wife, Charlotte, of 38 years. He also has grandchildren. He credits his family with helping him heal. ``It's all the support of my family that's got me where I'm at today,'' Thomas said. ``My wife is always supporting me. My daughters, my son and my grandchildren--I'm very, very fortunate.'' However, Thomas is still haunted by his memories daily, and he doesn't want other soldiers to have to suffer the way he has had to. He believes, like I do, that our commitment to our veterans is a cost of war, and we must make it a priority to help, protect, and serve those who served. Too many of our Vietnam veterans never got the homecoming or the recognition they deserved. So today I am honored to have the opportunity to thank Thomas for his bravery both in battle and beyond. He is a Montanan born and bred, and his life has been a testament to the kind of commitment, courage, and compassion that our State can be proud of. It was my honor to recognize Thomas Rockroads, Jr. by presenting him with the Bronze Star Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge 1st Award, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Ribbon with 1960 Device, Sharpshooter Badge with auto rifle bar with rifle bar, Marksman Badge with machine gun bar, and the Parachutist Badge Basic. Our State and our Nation thank you, Thomas, for your service and for a soldier's sacrifice.

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, today I rise as a staunch supporter of every American's right to privacy. I rise because, like many Montanans, I have grave concerns about whether my personal information gets handed over to the government. As the Senate debates the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, I start by acknowledging the inherent conflict between the right to privacy and national security. Some folks want to pretend this conflict doesn't exist, but it does. Ask yourself this: How do we stop cyber terrorists from crashing our networks, stealing our personal information, and throwing our entire economy into a tailspin--an economy that is dependent on technology? How do we do this without violating your right to privacy and mine? How do we do this without giving the Federal Government far-reaching authority to share the personal information of law-abiding citizens? These are tough questions that require thoughtful answers, and I do believe we can answer them. I do believe we can strike a balance that protects our right to privacy and protects our Nation from threats. That is why I want to offer my support for a couple of amendments sponsored by colleagues from both sides of the aisle. The first amendment, from Senators Flake and Franken, provides the necessary 6-year sunset for this legislation. That means that in 6 years Congress would be forced to have another conversation about how we ensure every American's right to privacy while also ensuring our national security. These conversations are incredibly important, and we should revisit them often. We should revisit them often because we know that a government unchecked is dangerous. In a world where technology changes faster than our laws, we cannot and must not give corporations and the Federal Government unbridled authority for generations to come. We already know that several Federal agencies have engaged in invasive surveillance of law-abiding Americans. They have utilized intrusive monitoring techniques--tracking our phone calls, listening to our conversations, gathering storehouses of personal information. They have done this in the name of the PATRIOT Act, one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to come out of this body. It took a long time for those agencies to own up to the fact that certain operations were far bigger in scope than what they had led Congress or the American public to believe. The best thing we can do to try to prevent a repeat of those mistakes is to pass the amendment offered by my good friend Senator Wyden. This amendment would improve cyber security and better protect privacy by reducing the amount of unnecessary personal information that would be shared about a possible cyber security threat. It seems like common sense to me, and I certainly appreciate Senator Wyden championing this issue. As Members of Congress we all took an oath to the people of this Nation to protect them from enemies both foreign and domestic, and we should not give up our ability to check and balance this administration or for that matter the next one. That is why the Flake-Franken amendment and the Wyden amendment are so critical, and I urge my colleagues to support them when they come to the floor. With that, Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to recognize the men and women of the forest products industry as we celebrate National Forest Products Week. These folks represent a critical part of my State's outdoor heritage and economy. The forestry and forest products industries support nearly 5,000 jobs in Montana and generate approximately $22 million in State and local taxes. Today, Montana is home to 20 facilities that rely on forest products, from sawmills to engineered wood and panel production sites. In a time of increased global competition, when the U.S. Forest Service has to spend over half its budget on wildfire costs instead of managing our forests, the men and women who work in this industry deserve our support. These are the folks who cut trees, transport them from the forest to mills, process lumber, and make a wide variety of products that we use every day. I remain committed to pursuing sound forestry and trade policies that will ensure this important industry can compete fairly, contribute to sustainable forest management, and continue to provide good jobs in Montana. The forest products industry is also looking forward to find new ways to put our wood fiber to good use and create additional value for local economies in Montana. In Whitefish, SmartLam, Inc. is the first manufacturer of cross laminated timber, CLT, products in the Nation. This Montana company is on the cutting edge of engineered-wood technology for building construction materials. SmartLam is producing more than a million board feet of CLT products a month and hopes to open a new facility due to increasing demand. These products can aid in the construction of taller, more fire-safe wood buildings and help reduce the carbon footprint of the construction process. Innovative wood construction systems are flexible and can be easily combined with other building materials, offering alternatives for construction in urban areas while supporting sustainable development in rural communities. In addition to providing good jobs, the forest products industry plays a key role in the sustainable management of the more than 25 million acres of forests in Montana. Most of the forested lands in Montana are managed by the U.S. Forest Service. We have seen industry come together with a wide array of stakeholders in Montana to develop collaborative recommendations for projects aimed at supporting local economies, improving forest health, reducing wildfire risks, and restoring watersheds. On private lands, industry has partnered with conservation organizations to keep forested lands forested as development pressures have grown. In addition to National Forest Products Week, this week also marks the fifth annual Montana Forest Products Week. There is no better time to say thanks to the folks who work in Montana's forest products industry.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. It is hard to say what the agenda is. I do know that earlier this year there was a proposal put out to use the Land and Water Conservation Fund for fighting forest fires. Now there is a proposal put out to use the Land and Water Conservation Fund to manage forests. The fact is, the Land and Water Conservation Fund works. It works to create habitat, and it works to access that habitat. It also works for playgrounds and parks and ball fields all across this country. If we take a look at our overall budget and what we spend on a lot of stuff around here, $900 million for a nationwide program that impacts so many people, that impacts our economy in such a very positive way-- there must be some agenda out there that I cannot see to do away with this fund. It makes no sense to me. And it is particularly frustrating to see folks on the other side of the aisle come down here to the floor and bring their friends in and say: I am going to make this glorious speech about this Land and Water Conservation Fund, and then I want you to stop the unanimous consent. The bottom line is that things get done in here when we work in the middle. As I told some folks the other day in Montana, we need to bring these folks around who think this is just excess government spending because, quite frankly, there are a lot of places where there is excess government spending in our budget. This is not one of them. This is a good program that helps promote a great way of outdoor life and also helps promote our economy.

Mr. TESTER. That is absolutely correct. One of the things that makes this moment in time so important when it comes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund is that we are losing habitat, we are losing fisheries every day. There will be limited opportunities to keep these pristine lands available for hunting and fishing in the future, but the habitat will be gone if we don't deal with it. That is why it is very important not only to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund but to fully fund it so we can take care of these landscapes that help support incredibly great elk and deer and trout fisheries. It is very important. Plus, there are a lot more opportunities in our great outdoors, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund really helps people enjoy life and have quality of life. And I am not just talking about the folks who have incredibly thick wallets; I am talking about everyday, average Americans who work for a living and work darned hard for a living and want to be able to enjoy some of the great things this country has to offer.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER. Absolutely. We hear from sports men and women nearly every day, if not every day. Here is where the problem is, and this is why we need to get the Land and Water Conservation Fund authorized and funded--and funded at $900 million, I might add. If you want to go hunting and fishing today in this country, things have changed from the way they were 30 or 40 years ago. You used to be able to access private lands and go hunting and fishing, and you still can, but there are many fewer acres. So the real opportunity to go hunting and fishing in this country is on our public lands, whether those are State or Federal, and this Land and Water Conservation Fund allows access to those public lands. There are some in this body and there are some in this country who don't think the Federal Government should own one stitch of land. Well, without those opportunities and our outdoor economy, No. 1, our way of life would change forever in States such as Montana, and No. 2, our economy would be severely distressed. So, you bet, I hear from sports men and women, because when they want to go hunting and fishing, they go to those Federal public lands. That is where the good habitat is that they can access, and that is where the good fisheries are that they can access. So this is very important. For those in this body who want to see this program go away, they are literally driving a nail in the coffin of rural America's economy.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to thank Senators Cantwell and Heinrich for not giving up on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and I need to point out that while there are three of us Democrats standing here, we speak for our entire caucus. We believe that the LWCF is something that needs to be reauthorized and, quite frankly, needs to be fully funded. We are not going to play games with this issue. We are working to get this bill passed--not for show, not for politics, but because it is good for our economy. And I will get into that in a second. There was a Republican gentleman who served in the Presidency of this great country some time ago--Teddy Roosevelt--who called on Americans to cherish our Nation's vast natural resources and to ensure that we safely pass them on to future generations. After all, they are the birthright of every American. That is what the Land and Water Conservation Fund is all about. We take special pride in our public lands in Montana. They are a part of our way of life. We have just over 1 million people in our great State, but we lead the Nation in the percentage of residents who hunt, fish, hike, and enjoy our public lands. And the Land and Water Conservation Fund is a big reason for that. Montana's outdoor economy brings in nearly $6 billion a year. Let me say that again. The outdoor economy, supported by the Land and Water Conservation Fund, brings in nearly $6 billion a year. Last week, when I flew out of Montana, there were several fishermen who were flying out with me. They didn't live in Montana. All the money they brought into the State while they were fishing was outside dollars that wouldn't have been there otherwise. They probably used some of the fishing access--some of the 150-plus fishing access the Land and Water Conservation Fund has helped developed--when they enjoyed the great outdoors in Montana. The Land and Water Conservation Fund also supports over 60,000 jobs. We talk about economic development all the time. We talk about how if we tweak our Tax Code or if we build this piece of infrastructure or if we make this education program more affordable, it can have an incredible impact on our economy. But the fact is, if you want to talk about economic development, if you want to talk about dollars invested for a return, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is an incredible investment. To help preserve these lands and create these accesses, Montana has received some $540 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund-- money that has been very well spent. Montanans used this Land and Water Conservation Fund to preserve more than 8,000 acres of elk habitat in Meagher County, known as the Tenderfoot. Montanans used the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect some of the most pristine habitat in the lower 48, from conservation easements in the Rocky Mountain Front to acquisitions in the Crown of the Continent. While Montanans certainly benefit from the fund, there are Land and Water Conservation Fund projects in nearly every county of the United States. Yes, this fund is responsible for protecting prime hunting and fishing, but it is also responsible for building trails and improving parks, playgrounds, and ball fields in every State in the country. That is why Congress must reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund-- to protect our best outdoor places and to reestablish this critical tool to build our communities in a way that will make future generations proud. With that, Mr. President, if it is appropriate, I would like to ask my good friend from New Mexico a question. I thank Senator Heinrich for being here today. My question is, As he comes from New Mexico, is the Land and Water Conservation Fund something Senator Heinrich hears about from his residents?

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to honor William H. Sampsel, a veteran of World War II. On behalf of all Montanans and all Americans, I stand to say thank you to William for his service to our Nation. It is my honor to share the story of William's life and service--a story that most certainly won't be forgotten and a story he perhaps wouldn't have told himself. William, an extremely humble man, never asked to be placed on a pedestal; in fact it was his quiet service that is the landmark of his story. William was born in the midst of the Great Depression in January of 1925. His parents William H. and Marguerite Brennan Sampsel lived in Shenandoah, PA, at the time. His father, William H., was a meter reader with the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and would later become a district manager. His mother, Marguerite, cared for five children. From a young age, William developed a strong work ethic that would serve him well throughout his life. He started his first job at the age of 14, clearing forest land by hand, earning a modest wage of $1 a day. By the time he was off to college, he quadrupled his wage to $4 a day. William's high school football coach, Al ``Ali Baba'' Barbartsky, a teammate of Vince Lombardi, helped make it possible for William to attend the University of Illinois on a football scholarship. Although William was a 180-pound guard for U of I's football team, his true love was baseball. In 1943, William enlisted in the Army and was assigned to Fort Benning, GA, for basic training. The following year, he was sent to an infantry division at Camp McCain, MS. Shortly following, he was transferred to the 319th Combat Engineer Battalion, where he deployed to France in August of 1944 as an Army engineer. While in France on orders to contain a pocket of German soldiers in Lorient and St. Nazaire, he was wounded in battle. Toward the end of the war, he was promoted to second lieutenant and received a Purple Heart medal. Now, William never told his family about receiving a Purple Heart for his service. They found out after noticing his name on the Montana Purple Heart Memorial wall in Billings. But when asked about his prestigious award, he humbly described the incident as ``just a little shrapnel''. But this only speaks true to the man he was. After his service in the Army was up, William attended Penn State University and graduated in 1949 with a degree in geology. He then was hired at Amerada Petroleum Co.--now known as Hess--in Tyler, TX. There he met his wife Christine Wallis, and they were married in May of 1952. William and Christine moved to Regina, SK, Calgary, AB; and ultimately settled in Billings, MT, in 1961. William and Christine had two children--daughter, Priscilla, who now lives in Laurel, and son, Michael William Sampsel, who lives in Tucson, Arizona. Outside of his accomplishments as a geologist, William loved to fish and is remembered for his love of the outdoors. William died on July 19, 2012. William always gave all he had to give, whether it was his knowledge, military service, or help to others in need. His life story is reflective of the dedicated, hard-working, and generous man folks knew. It is my honor to recognize William H. Sampsel's bravery and service to the United States by presenting his family with his Purple Heart, in addition to a Good Conduct Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with four bronze service stars, World War II Victory Medal, Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp, Honorable Service Lapel Button WW II, and a sharpshooter badge and rifle bar. Our Nation is grateful for William's service.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I do wish to go back to the comments of the good Senator from New Hampshire on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and I want to associate myself with those remarks. I also wish to add for the record that there is a fair amount of this money that is spent for land acquisition from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That is not a bad thing. Get some of the in-holdings out of being in-holdings. It helps with management, and it helps with management costs. I will tell you, if you are a fisherman or a hunter in this country, access and habitat is a huge issue, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund is all about access for hunters, fishermen, bike riders, birdwatchers, and all those folks, and habitat for big game and fisheries. For this fund to expire for the first time ever is a travesty. You are right. We spent $306 million on it the last 2 years; we were supposed to have spent $900 million in this fund, and that is why there is the reserve there is. Quite frankly, if you take a look at the United States, you take a look at the in-holdings, and you take a look at the recreational opportunities out there--$306 million isn't enough. Yet this fund has expired and is not authorized. In Montana alone, just for the record, recreational opportunities add $6 billion, with a ``b,'' to our economy. We are a State of 1 million people--$6 billion to our economy. It employs over 64,000 people, and that doesn't count the businesses that moved to Montana for the recreational opportunities nor the people who come to work for those businesses for the recreational opportunities. I just wanted to get that into the Record. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the bill under consideration, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill, and I express my opposition to that bill. Why? We just heard a presentation on the floor a minute ago from the Senator who talked about shooting down planes and potentially going to war. The amount that it costs to take care of our veterans is a cost of war, and we are underfunding the VA today by over $800 million. I express my deep disappointment in the majority's inability to recognize the true cost of sending this Nation, young men and women, into harm's way. Veterans Day is 6 weeks from now. Many of the folks in this Chamber will go back to their home States where they will be attending ceremonies and taking photos of men and women who are in uniform. We will give speeches and talk about our profound gratitude to the veterans and their families who have sacrificed so much for their country. In the meantime, you will see a flurry of press statements from Senators, oftentimes patting themselves on their backs for extending benefits to veterans or enhancing the quality and timeliness of their care, or you will hear Senators and Congressmen lamenting on the lack of leadership within the VA and taking the VA to task for not performing up to their expectations. But there is one thing many of those Members of Congress will not do, and that is give the VA the resources it needs to serve the men and women who have served this country and the military. Right now, the VA is under greater demand for services and subject to a higher degree of accountability than any other time in this Department's history. After a decade of war in the Middle East, that demand should be expected to be high. After recent allegations of mismanagement and wrongdoing, that accountability is absolutely warranted, but the standard we are holding the VA to should be the standard we hold ourselves to. Is Congress doing the very best that it can do to ensure our Nation's veterans can access the health care and the benefits they have earned? Given the appropriations bill before us, the answer to that question is: No, we are not. Our job is to make sure the VA is working for all veterans and to make sure it can work for all veterans. That means holding the VA accountable and ensuring it operates in full transparency, but that also means the VA has to have the capacity to meet the current needs of the demand for its services and to meet those demands into the future. It requires rigorous oversight. Today's President understands that. There is no doubt about that, but it also requires giving the VA the tools and the resources it needs to get the job done. Let's be clear. I believe this bill sets the VA up for failure. There are folks on the other side who are demanding that the VA fix itself, but in order to fix itself, we have to give it the tools it needs to do that. We are refusing to do that in this bill. We are setting up the VA for failure, and that failure will result in failing our veterans. If this bill is enacted, it could mean that 68,500 fewer veterans are receiving the VA medical care they need, including veterans such as a constituent of mine from Reed Point, MT. This man had an eye exam in early February and received a prescription for a new pair of glasses. He was told he would receive them in 4 to 6 weeks, but due to a large backlog, he did not receive them until July. It took 5 months to get this man glasses. How are we going to improve the quality of care for veterans if the VA budget isn't where it needs to be? Take the story of Perry, who is 67 years old. He has a 100-percent service disability due to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. He relies on the VA for lifesaving cancer treatment. Without chemotherapy and specialty care, Perry's prognosis is not good. To make matters worse, the VA can approve only six appointments at a time, which is a real challenge for Perry because he is receiving treatment 5 days a week. So every week he has to fill out another round of paperwork to qualify for medical care. These are real folks who served their county. They are veterans who have real issues with the VA today at current funding levels. Do we think these problems are going to be easier to solve if we give them an underfunded budget? They won't be. Over the last 14 years, we fought 2 wars in the Middle East. Almost 10,000 Americans are still involved in a fight in Afghanistan at this very moment. For them, this war is far from over, and for many people in this Chamber--some who led us into the war in Iraq--they refuse to admit these are also the true costs of war, taking care of our veterans. When we send young men and women over there and we put these wars on America's credit card as we did--financed by China, Japan, and others-- we do not bother to factor in what it would cost to meet their health care and educational requirements when they come back home. Honoring our commitment to veterans is a cost of war and one that we should never forget about. Those who came home are now suffering from physical wounds but also wounds we cannot see. As I said yesterday, at least 22 veterans are taking their own lives every single day, and $1 billion less won't help the VA get these men and women back on their feet and give them the mental health care that they need. The VA also faces unprecedented demand for new treatments of diseases such as hepatitis C, which are shorter in duration, with fewer side effects, and that have cure rates--and this is very good news-- approaching 100 percent, but they cost money. As Vietnam veterans reach retirement age, that means that nearly half of this Nation's veteran population will be 65 years of age or older. They are entitled to their VA care. After all, they have earned it, and they are going to need more and more of that care in the years ahead. My home State of Montana has the second highest per capita veterans population in this country. It is a rural State where distance poses a major obstacle to care. The Choice Act that we passed and enacted last year was designed to address many of those obstacles that rural veterans face. The VA is also working to establish residency programs in rural States to encourage rural medical providers to locate in those rural States. We need to build off of these efforts and work to ensure they are carried out as we intended and as the veterans deserve. Will cutting pay for VA providers help bring more medical professionals to Montana or Alaska or Oklahoma or North Carolina? The answer is no. I go home nearly every weekend, and when I travel around the State, I talk to veterans. They tell me that getting in the door of that VA can be very frustrating. Shortchanging the VA's medical facilities doesn't solve that problem. Not allowing the VA to hire more doctors and nurses doesn't solve that problem. So today we need to fix this bill because the folks who sacrificed so much for this country deserve nothing less. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to talk today about the bill we are considering currently--the MILCON-VA bill. I urge the Senate to take up and pass an appropriations bill that does right by our Nation's veterans. I think it is very important. But the MILCON-VA bill before us today--and I might add along with the rest of the appropriations bills--is shackled to an unwise and unrealistic budget that locks in destructive sequestration cuts and vastly underfunds programs vital to this Nation's security and prosperity, and it doesn't deal with the challenges the Veterans' Administration faces. Make no mistake about it, America's veterans would be severely shortchanged by this bill as it is currently drafted. Coming from the State of Montana, where we have the second highest per capita veterans population, I cannot look in the eyes of our Nation's brave men and women and say to them that this bill will fulfill our promise to you. This bill underfunds our veterans by over $850 million, subjecting the VA to the across-the-board spending caps the majority is desperate to avoid on the Defense bill. That is hypocritical because, let's be honest with ourselves, caring for our veterans is a cost of war. What we know and what the majority knows is that this bill is severely limiting the VA's ability to fulfill its mission--caring for those who have borne the battle. Need I remind everyone that just a few weeks ago, because of a surge in demand for hepatitis C treatments and a historic increase in non-VA care referrals, the VA medical services account ran out of money. As a result, we had to pass emergency legislation to allow Choice Act funding to be used to shore up the VA and prevent a serious disruption for veterans across this country. The budget pressures that caused that shortfall are the result of an unprecedented demand for services in terms of both numbers and complexity, and that demand will only continue to grow. At some point during the next year, nearly half the veterans will be 65 years old or older. Many of these folks will be seeking treatment to deal with the effects of toxic exposure--something we are struggling to better understand and treat and something that could have effects on their children and grandchildren. At the same time, a younger generation of veterans is struggling to cope with the unseen wounds of war. They are fighting to keep their lives and their families together, and for some of them it is a daily struggle to overcome the suicidal thoughts that claim the lives of at least 22 of their peers each and every day. Those are the stakes here. They are that high. We are also talking about an unprecedented demand for expensive new treatments for diseases, such as hepatitis C, which are shorter in duration and which have fewer side effects and have cure rates approaching 100 percent. That is good news, but we have to have money to do that. We are talking about addressing a chronic shortage of medical professionals, particularly mental health professionals in rural America, which greatly hinders our ability to provide veterans with timely and quality care. We are talking about a growing population of caregivers who have been forced to abandon their jobs and their livelihoods to care for loved ones with debilitating medical conditions, and we are talking about facilities that are literally crumbling in some cases and severely impacting the delivery of care. I believe we need more transparency and accountability from the VA to ensure it is spending taxpayer dollars in a responsible way. But let's be clear. Today we are asking more and more of the VA, and this bill gives them less than they need. Now is not the time to take a step backward. If we do that, we are never going to catch up. If we don't enact a commonsense, long-term budget that better reflects our priorities, our values, and provides the tools and resources required to fulfill our promises to veterans and their families, then we should all question just what are we doing here. Mr. President, there are cases when each of us has looked at a bill or amendment and said: You know, it is not perfect, but it is good enough. Sometimes that is what it takes to get work done around here. But when it comes to our veterans, when it comes to restoring confidence in the VA after the problems they have had in the last 2 years, I don't think that is a path we should take. I know my chairman, Senator Kirk, did his best in writing this bill to soften the blow of budget constraints that he was forced to meet. I truly appreciate his efforts and his inclusiveness in working with me. But the fact is that he was handed a no-win allocation by his party's budget. You can't patch the holes in the VA budget created by sequestration. You can't shift money from known medical care requirements--treatment for cancer, diabetes, or kidney disease, to name just a few--to plug gaps in emerging requirements, such as lifesaving but costly new hepatitis C treatments. That is why I offered an amendment in committee to restore $857 million to bring the VA to its requested level. Unfortunately, none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle joined me, and it failed on a party-line vote. I am at a complete loss as to why we are now being asked to move to a bill that we all know underfunds the VA by almost $1 billion. For what? So that we can send this bill to conference with the House, whose own VA bill underfunds the VA by $1.4 billion--$600 million more than the Senate. That will not improve the quality or the timeliness of veterans health care nor will giving the VA authority to fire more doctors and nurses without due process. It is time to stop the political games and maneuvering. To serve our veterans, to serve this country, and to serve all Americans, Congress must establish funding levels driven by what the VA actually needs, not by some arbitrary mathematical formula. We need a rational, realistic, bipartisan budget agreement to replace the draconian sequestration funding levels entrenched in the majority's fiscal year 2016 budget. I have been calling on Senate leaders for months to sit down and hash out a long-term budget agreement. The majority leader's response was to wait until the day before the government was scheduled to shut down and then pass a short-term CR. As early as tomorrow, we expect to vote on an appropriations bill that will drastically underfund the VA for the next fiscal year. This is clearly an attempt to paint those of us who think this bill is insufficient as voting against veterans. That plan will not work because I am here to tell you that veterans are well aware of the funding shortfall. It is one of the chief problems that is currently plaguing the VA. I will continue to provide adequate funding to support America's veterans. While I am disappointed the majority wouldn't work with us on a broader budget deal this summer, the CR that we passed today gives us just over 2 months to reach a reasonable budget agreement--an agreement that will support our veterans, an agreement that Members on both sides of the aisle agree we need. That is the job we are elected to do. But make no mistake, if we are having this same conversation on December 10, we have failed--failed our veterans, failed the American people. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to proceed to this bill so that we can finally negotiate a bipartisan budget agreement that will do away with the devastating impacts of sequestration and will instead provide a responsible way forward to fund our government, to protect our national security, and to care for this Nation's veterans. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to honor Director Lowell Pimley of the Bureau of Reclamation as he retires after more than three decades of public service. The values of hard work and practicality that he learned on his family's farm outside Chester, Montana, have echoed loudly throughout his 35-year career with the Bureau of Reclamation. On the occasion of his retirement, I would like to thank him, farmer to farmer, for the long hours, the technical expertise, and the uniquely Western perspective he has brought to bear on this demanding job. Lowell Pimley joined the Bureau of Reclamation in 1980 as a civil engineer after graduating from Montana State University with his bachelor's and master's degree in Civil Engineering. He applied himself to developing, designing, and supporting tunnels, bridges, pipelines, and other infrastructure projects. As he gained recognition for his engineering skills and his leadership ability, Mr. Pimley rose through the ranks to become the Technical Service Center Director in 2008. There, he led a team of more than 500 engineers, scientists, and technicians as they assisted in the planning, design, and construction of water resource projects. Mr. Pimley came to Washington, DC, to become the Deputy Commissioner for Operations in 2013 and began overseeing all five of Reclamation's regions and the Native American and International Affairs Office. In 2014, Secretary Jewell recognized his talents and appointed Mr. Pimley to serve as Acting Commissioner. While serving in Washington, Mr. Pimley testified before Congress both as the Deputy Commissioner and Acting Commissioner, representing his agency well and providing Congress with his valuable insight. The Bureau of Reclamation has already acknowledged Mr. Pimley's outstanding service over his career, including the Meritorious Service Award in 2012 and a Distinguished Service Award in 2015 for his outstanding leadership, dedication, and accomplishments. He is widely respected by his peers, stakeholders, and folks across the country. To that list of appreciation, I would like to add my own thanks and congratulations on a career dedicated to public service. As he retires, he can be proud of his lasting legacy, ensuring that Reclamation continues to supply water and power to the farms, towns, and communities of the West. I again offer Mr. Pimley my warmest congratulations and hope that he enjoys a rich and rewarding retirement with his wife, Debbie, and their children Ashley, Brittany, and Brian, as they head back West to Littleton, Colorado, and to the family farm near Chester, Montana.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in wanting to fix the way we fund fire. We have to start using common sense and budget for catastrophic wildfires like we do for other natural disasters. Unfortunately, due to congressional inaction and growing costs associated with fighting wildfires, the Forest Service is increasingly turning into a firefighting agency. This means fewer resources for smart public land management. Montana's National forests benefit our outdoor recreation economy, support timber jobs in rural communities, and preserve the drinking water that Montanans rely on. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address both the issues of fire borrowing and the increasing costs of fighting fires. The Forest Service cannot continue to absorb these increasing costs without undermining other critical priorities, from timber harvest and research to conservation and recreation management. There is real bipartisan support for getting something done on this issue and I am confident a growing number of our colleagues will join us as we push forward this fall.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Thank you, Madam President. Once again, this 114th Congress is proving its priorities are completely misguided. Last week the House of Representatives adjourned for a 6-week recess instead of taking up the Senate 6-year highway bill. That bill would strengthen our transportation infrastructure and reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which helps businesses compete globally and returns hundreds of millions of dollars to the Treasury. By skipping town, the House forced another short extension, delaying long-term investments and denying States and businesses long-term certainty. Today we are debating whether to defund Planned Parenthood and deny thousands of women access to primary health care. Outside of these walls, this debate was settled decades ago. Most voters--including over 70 percent of Independents--oppose this effort because they see it for what it is: an aggressive assault on women's health care. If you don't believe me, let me tell you the story of one of my constituents named Liz from Billings. Planned Parenthood has been Liz's primary health care provider for 30 years. The doctors and nurses at her local facility found precancerous cells and got her the treatment she needed to prevent a life-threatening disease. Despite a complicated medical history, she was able to start a family thanks to the prenatal care she accessed at Planned Parenthood. Now she has a daughter of her own and trusts the providers of Planned Parenthood to provide critical health care to her and her family. But Liz isn't alone. In 2013, in my home State of Montana, over 15,000 men and women were patients at Planned Parenthood for everything from affordable primary care to cancer screenings, to family planning services. Four out of ten women who receive care at a title X-funded health care center consider it their only source of health care. Taking away this funding is political, shortsighted, and outright dangerous. Unfortunately, it is not their only attempt to rob women of their health care choices. As it sits now, next year's U.S. House appropriations bill for Health and Human Services eliminates all of the title X family planning health clinics. While that is the kind of shortsightedness we have come to expect from the House in recent years, the Senate Labor-HHS appropriations bill isn't much better because it significantly cuts title X funding. It cuts teen pregnancy prevention funding by 81 percent. In a large rural State like Montana, access to quality health care is always a serious challenge. Without a serious effort to recruit more doctors and nurses, we could soon be facing a crisis-level shortage of qualified medical providers. This bill is designed to score political points, no doubt about it. It is certainly not designed with women's health or public health in mind. This is crazy. We need to be giving the American people more options when it comes to their health care, not fewer. I would urge my colleagues to stop the political gaming and simply vote no on this bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, first of all, before I get into my prepared remarks, I want to say thanks to Senator Alexander and Senator Murray for their great work on this bill. I very much appreciate where we are today, and hopefully when the amendments are all done, this bill will continue to be a step forward for this country's public education system and the students who are in it. As everybody may know in this body, I am a third-generation farmer from North Central Montana. My wife Sharla and I have the incredible opportunity of farming the same land my grandfather and grandmother homesteaded and my folks worked for 35 years. I have been working on the farm since I was very young. From the age of 8, I knew I wanted to be a farmer, but my parents were insistent that I work hard in school and that I pursue a degree, even though agriculture was in my blood. They knew a degree would give me greater opportunity both on and off the farm. My mother, in particular, had an unbreakable faith in the power of public education. So I went to college and after college--I graduated and got a degree--I started teaching in the same elementary school I attended as a child. While my calling as a farmer pulled me away from my time as a public school teacher in rural America--now, to be honest with you, the fact is, I could make more money in 1 day processing meat than I could in a week of teaching school. But that is another problem. Nonetheless, I left the formal public education classroom. But it remained a key part of my life because I knew education was important. My parents instilled that in me. So I ran for the school board and got elected. I have been involved in public education my entire life, as a student, as a teacher, as a parent, as a school board member, as a State senator, as a grandfather, and now as a U.S. Senator. I have seen the positive impact that good education can have on folks' lives. I have seen how our system has failed too many kids. Last year, Denise Juneau, Montana's Superintendent of Public Instruction, put out a report on why graduation matters. Nearly 80 percent of the male inmates in Montana's prison system are high school dropouts--80 percent of the male inmates in Montana's prison system are high school dropouts. Nearly three-quarters of the women in Montana jails are high school dropouts. Superintendent Juneau estimated that Montana could combine crime reduction savings and additional revenue of over $19 million annually if we just graduated 5 percent more kids and incarcerated fewer of them. Nationally, these stakes are just as high. According to some figures, over 80 percent of the incarcerated population is high school dropouts. It is true that over 8,000 Americans drop out of high school each and every day. We can see how quickly the cost of incarceration will add up, even if many stay out of trouble and some go back and get their GED years later. But it is not only the question of incarceration. The only jobs left within reach of a high school dropout are almost always going to be minimum wage or close to it. That perpetuates the cycle of poverty. So every American ought to know what we are up against. I know that what we do this week with the Every Child Achieves Act will affect millions of American families for years to come. For the past few months, the Appropriations Committee has been working on bills that impact everything from our national defense to veterans, to agriculture, to access to public lands. I have been highly critical of where this majority thinks we should spend money and where it thinks we don't need to invest. My colleagues on the Appropriations Committee deserve a lot of credit for doing the best they can, but the end result is still unacceptable. They have underfunded care for veterans by over $850 million compared to what the VA says it needs to keep up with the increased number of veterans accessing the VA. They have rejected efforts to make Head Start a full-day, full-year learning initiative. By freezing Head Start funding, they risk kicking more than 12,000 kids out of Head Start, despite the successes I have already told you about prison populations and education. It is a direct connection. They have cut half a billion dollars out of clean water projects. Meanwhile, they have funneled $40 billion of borrowed money into an off-the-books account used for overseas military operations. This week, as we work to reform elementary and secondary education to ensure that our kids and our grandkids are prepared for the challenges of this worldwide economy in which we live, we simply cannot afford to shortchange their future. That doesn't just mean providing the framework that will guide our Nation's 100,000 school districts as they work to improve education that our students receive, it also means letting them make decisions for themselves. If schools are not teaching well, they are accountable to school boards. If school boards are hiring bad teachers or misapplying resources, they are accountable to their voters. I can tell you as a former school board member, they are accountable to their voters. But we also have to provide them with the resources they need to succeed. This is an investment we must make. Almost everyone in this body agrees that education is the single best investment we can make to ensure that folks are able to climb the economic ladder and get out of poverty. While I do not agree with everything in the Every Child Achieves Act, I can tell you it is certainly a step in the right direction. Most importantly--most importantly--this bill eliminates adequate yearly progress known as AYP and moves us away from some of the failed high-stakes testing we have come to know. The chairman and ranking member need to be applauded for that. No Child Left Behind assumed that all students were the same and that success in the classroom meant passing a standardized test. We all know that is simply not the case. No Child Left Behind aimed to hold teachers and administrators solely responsible for the performance of their students, and punishment for low performance was rendered in the halls of the Department of Education here in Washington, DC. Well, yes, I can tell you teachers and administrators must be held accountable, but much of that achievement gap is tied to things out of the hands of those teachers and administrators. It is tied to what happens outside the classroom. Students' lives both inside the classroom and out are significantly different depending on their community and the home in which they live. One of the single biggest factors that impact students' lives is poverty. If we do not address that issue, then this well-intentioned bill will not have the desired effects. If we do not recognize that urban poverty and rural poverty are very different, then we will fail to keep the promise that in America, any kid can grow up to be in the U.S. Senate or be successful in business or in the arts. Quite simply, if we are going to hold teachers and students accountable without addressing the root of some of the inequities in our public schools, then we are not addressing one of the most basic problems our Nation and our schools face. Using a single formula to grade the Nation's 100,000 schools didn't work, especially when folks in Washington expected schools to change overnight. That expectation added so much pressure to perform that students and teachers alike dreaded going to school. We lost a lot of good teachers. This bill, resulting from the hard work of Senator Alexander and Senator Murray, acknowledges that Washington doesn't have all the answers when it comes to educating our kids. It puts more control in the hands of our States and local school boards. For example, under No Child Left Behind, all 100,000 schools in this country were subjected to the same regulation for graduation rates. Under that regulation, schools can only count students who graduate with a diploma in 4 years. School districts don't get credit for students who graduate in 5 years or if they earned a GED. Oftentimes, students who take more than 4 years to graduate have personal or family issues that prevent them from graduating on time. States would have to beg for permission from the Department of Education to count fifth-year graduates, and if the Department chose to accept those graduates, it would tell the States how much weight those students would count toward the schools' assessment. Under the Every Child Achieves Act, States will no longer have to apply to count fifth- year graduates and they can determine on their own how to weigh those students when assessing graduation rates. This bill also builds on the Schools of Promise Initiative that has worked well in Montana to put some of our poorest performing schools on the right path. Under the leadership of Superintendent Juneau, the communities that are home to Montana's five lowest rated public schools have received support to attract and retain better teachers and to encourage community members to be more involved in the education of our children. That model, which empowers districts and schools to get better--and hire better--is being strengthened by the Every Child Achieves Act. While this bill can and should go further to place more power at the local level, we have taken a good first step in its potential to do even better. I recently paid a visit to Busby, MT, on the border of the Northern Cheyenne and Crow Indian Reservations. Beautiful country surrounded by rolling hills, Busby is so small that if you blink while driving, you could miss it. Busby is home to one of Montana's three Bureau of Indian Education schools. It is easy to see how broken America's promise to our tribal communities really is when one goes to Busby. The school has too few resources. The science teacher doesn't have any working microscopes. The teachers often cut pages out of their instruction manuals and make photocopies for each of their students. And the school needs maintenance. While the scene at many BIE schools would drive you to tears, the public schools that educate over 90 percent of our Native American students are also in serious need of support. Over the last decade, Native American students are the only group--they are the only group-- who has not seen improvements in reading and math. In fact, the achievement gap in math has actually widened during that time. Native American students are also the most likely to skip school or drop out and the least likely to go to college. That is why last week the Senate passed my amendment to restore four grant programs that could help improve education in Indian Country, if they get funded. My amendment allows schools and colleges to train teachers to understand Native American culture so they are better equipped to help those Native American students succeed. It preserves fellowship programs for Native American students to get greater hands- on experience through their degree. It protects gifted and talented programs to better address the needs of bright young Native American students, and it maintains support for adult literacy and GED programs in Native American communities. Those title VII initiatives have never been funded, but they will have a major, positive impact on Native Americans across the country if we can find the money to fund them. Last week's bipartisan vote showed there is real support for these initiatives, and we should provide them with adequate resources. Additionally, this bill includes strong steps toward improving native language instruction. It is a very good initiative because we know that when Indian kids learn in their native language, they do better in school and carry their history and tradition on to future generations, and they graduate at a higher rate. Another important step we can take--one that I hear about often when meeting with parents, teachers, and administrators back home--is reducing the annual Federal testing requirement because right now, under No Child Left Behind, we are testing our kids to death. As my colleagues know, a student will take 17 federally mandated tests by the time they graduate high school--17. I met with some fourth and sixth grade students, as well as their teachers and parents, about how much testing the Feds require. As my colleagues well know, fourth and sixth grade students usually tell it like it is. There is not a political agenda behind it when they ask a question or tell it the way they see it. So when I asked how much testing is the right amount, one bright young girl replied, ``I don't know, but I can tell you now it is too much.'' A fourth grade teacher there told me they are spending over 4 weeks a year testing. That is 4 weeks out of the year. That takes away from instruction time where kids could be learning. The level of testing that is currently required is choking out creativity, innovation, and taking away from our students' ability to learn. I have offered an amendment to replace that current annual testing with fewer tests. Instead of taking federally mandated tests every year, students would be required to take one test in elementary school, one test in middle school, and one test in high school. If States want to test their students more, they can. If school boards want to test their students more, they can. But, as the young girl in Billings said, what we are doing right now is too much. My goal and the goal of many in this body is to give a greater voice to the State and local community leaders to determine how best to educate the next generation. This bill as drafted puts us on that path. It is a chance to leave a better future for our country by making sure that every child--from the best school in the big city to the poorest Indian reservation in Montana--has a chance to succeed. Our schools should not be designed as data warehouses where we can collect statistics on every student in America. Instead, we should be making sure our students love to learn so that they continue to learn even after they graduate and enter the workforce. We should make sure they have the same appreciation for education my mother did. That is what we should be investing in, and that is whom we should be investing for. I once again thank Senator Alexander and Senator Murray for their work on this bill. I look forward to making this bill better through the amendment process--not worse--so that hopefully we have a good bill to vote on at the end of this week. I thank the Chair.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 2107 to restore four title VII grant programs that were removed from the Every Child Achieves Act. These initiatives will help Native American students who are too often forgotten in the debate about improving education in America. Restoring these initiatives will help students in Indian Country develop the tools they need to succeed. The bottom line is that this authorizes programs that were removed from ESEA. These programs help Native American kids succeed, and they need all the help they can get. These programs have never been funded. This is an authorization bill. If we put it in, these programs will continue to be authorized and we can fight about funding later, but to take them out of an authorization bill means these programs are dead, and I think it would be a disservice to Indian Country. I would appreciate a ``yes'' vote on amendment No. 2107.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Daines, I introduced the East Rosebud Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This legislation will help ensure that one of my state's most striking waterways is preserved for the use and enjoyment of future generations. In south central Montana, East Rosebud Creek meanders through the Absoraka-Beartooth Wilderness before pooling briefly at East Rosebud Lake. From there, the creek continues to flow down through the Custer National Forest and on, eventually, to the Yellowstone River. My legislation would protect 20 of the most scenic miles of East Rosebud Creek: those 13 miles above East Rosebud Lake and seven more on the downstream side. Designating these sections of river will protect its water quality and the free-flowing nature of the river, and will have no impact on private property. Local ranchers, businesses, homeowners associations, conservation groups, and everyday Montanans have recognized the need for a Wild and Scenic Rivers designation and have voiced their support. In its current management plan for Custer National Forest, the Forest Service also recognizes the incredible scenic and recreational values of East Rosebud Creek, and the river's potential for designation. In short, this bipartisan legislation is a proposal that comes tailor-made from folks on the ground and will preserve a portion of Montana's outdoor heritage for our kids and grandkids.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Daines, I introduced the East Rosebud Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This legislation will help ensure that one of my state's most striking waterways is preserved for the use and enjoyment of future generations. In south central Montana, East Rosebud Creek meanders through the Absoraka-Beartooth Wilderness before pooling briefly at East Rosebud Lake. From there, the creek continues to flow down through the Custer National Forest and on, eventually, to the Yellowstone River. My legislation would protect 20 of the most scenic miles of East Rosebud Creek: those 13 miles above East Rosebud Lake and seven more on the downstream side. Designating these sections of river will protect its water quality and the free-flowing nature of the river, and will have no impact on private property. Local ranchers, businesses, homeowners associations, conservation groups, and everyday Montanans have recognized the need for a Wild and Scenic Rivers designation and have voiced their support. In its current management plan for Custer National Forest, the Forest Service also recognizes the incredible scenic and recreational values of East Rosebud Creek, and the river's potential for designation. In short, this bipartisan legislation is a proposal that comes tailor-made from folks on the ground and will preserve a portion of Montana's outdoor heritage for our kids and grandkids.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Thank you, Senator Daines. It was a pleasure to share the Senate floor with you this afternoon. As Chuck Johnson retires and puts away his pen and his notebook, I want to say thank you to Chuck. In this body, we often think we are irreplaceable when we are not. I will say this about Chuck Johnson: It will be a long time before Montana sees someone as good as Chuck in the reporting corps. So, as a body, we honor Chuck Johnson's contributions to Montana, to our country, and to our democracy. Good luck, Chuck. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great Montana journalist. I got to know Chuck Johnson some 16 years ago when I was running for the State senate, but his distinguished career started long before that. While attending the University of Montana School of Journalism, Mr. Johnson was accepted to be a congressional intern here with the journalists in Washington, DC. That gave him a taste of political reporting. In 1972, Chuck Johnson was assigned to cover Montana's Constitutional Convention for the Associated Press. Little did he know at that time that this assignment would launch his professional career covering Montana politics, and little did he know that he would be writing history as he watched Montanans draft one of the most progressive State constitutions in the country. In his long career, Chuck Johnson covered 9 Governors, 9 U.S. Senators, 10 Congressmen, and more legislative sessions than I can count, including the years I had the honor of serving the great State of Montana in Helena. He pushed for increased media access and stood up for more transparency and for a reporter's right to be in the room. Thanks to Chuck, Montana now has a requirement that political caucuses are open to the press. Mr. Johnson and his colleague Mike Dennison worked hand in hand for years at the Lee State Bureau and wrote powerful stories that had sweeping impacts across our great State. So when news broke yesterday that Lee Enterprises was closing its State Bureau and Mr. Johnson would be retiring, the world of politics was buzzing. While a few politicians might be relieved, many of us recognize what a loss for journalism and for Montana this will be. As Chuck leaves political journalism, he leaves a giant hole that will be difficult, if not impossible, to fill. In the day of a 24-hour news cycle and a demand for immediate information, the people of Montana still count on Chuck Johnson to present the facts. Even though he started writing his stories on a typewriter, he has adapted with the times, learning how to tweet. Known as the ``Dean of the Capitol Press Corps,'' Mr. Johnson would take young reporters under his wing, teach them how to understand the governmental process, and share his vast knowledge of Montana politics. From his reporting on taxes and budgets, he has a way of making it easy to make sense to the average reader. But where his reporting really stands out is in his ability to track and understand campaign finance. He has been known to plow through election reports late on a Friday night when all of the other reporters have called it quits and gone to bed, digging for a story, holding elected leaders accountable, and reporting the facts. It is his integrity, his commitment to the truth, and fair reporting that have earned the respect of politicians and readers alike from both sides of the aisle. It is in that spirit that I would ask my colleague Senator Daines to join me. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Senator Daines and I to speak as in morning business.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for what he is doing. I think this is very important, and I stand here today with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect Americans' privacy rights. I am very much concerned by the overreach we have seen in the name of national security, and I oppose efforts to reauthorize any piece of it without real reforms. Folks in Montana know I have been an opponent of the PATRIOT Act since it was signed into law. Why? Because the PATRIOT Act violates law-abiding citizens' rights to privacy--something we hold dear in this country. We do need to make this country as secure as we possibly can, but we cannot do that at the expense of our constitutional rights. It has been talked about here earlier today that a Federal court recently ruled that the NSA bulk data collections are illegal, flat illegal. But keep in mind that the NSA used the PATRIOT Act to authorize those data collections. Yet, in the Senate, some of our colleagues think we should reauthorize those expiring provisions without even having a debate on the merits. We have seen this before. It has happened several times since I have been in the Senate. Trying to jam an extension of the PATRIOT Act through the Senate at the last minute is not fair to this body, and it is not fair at all to the American people. We deserve a real debate on privacy and security in the Senate. It is too important of an issue not to. We have to put some sideboards on our national intelligence agencies so that they can keep us safe without violating our constitutional rights. We need a real debate on this issue. Last week, the majority leader made a decision to deprive the Senate and the public of debate by taking up a trade bill which we could have passed in June. No doubt about it, we are approaching the Memorial Day recess. Some folks are anxious to go home, but we have work to do. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that we make real reforms to the PATRIOT Act. If the people in this body don't know that this is important, they don't know the Constitution. I thank everybody who spoke on the floor today. We need to have a debate. We need to have a debate on what the PATRIOT Act is about, how it is being utilized, and how we need to move forward. An extension is not acceptable. I yield the floor back to the Senator from Kentucky and thank him for the work he has done on this issue.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Durward C. ``Butch'' Waddill, a veteran of the Vietnam war. On behalf of all Montanans and all Americans, I say ``thank you'' to Butch for his service to our Nation. It is my honor to share the story of Butch's service in Vietnam, because no story of bravery should ever be forgotten. Butch was born on November 20, 1946 in Battle Creek, MI. Butch's parents were both in the Army: his mother was an Army nurse and his father was in the Medical Service Corps. Butch spent most of his childhood traveling among Army bases before settling in California. In 1964, Butch enlisted in the Marine Corps during his senior year of high school. Butch joined the infantry and attended training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego and Camp Pendleton. Butch was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment and was deployed to Okinawa for a 13-month assignment. After 1 month of training, Butch was sent as one of the first units to Vietnam in July 1965. His unit made a tactical landing on the beach in Da Nang. Butch spent the next 13 months in Vietnam before he was reassigned to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. Butch joined the 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion for a Caribbean cruise until he volunteered to return to Vietnam for a second tour. Back in Vietnam, Butch served with Company D, 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, 3rd Marine Division. On November 9, 1967, Butch was monitoring his battalion's radio net from a base at Phu Bai when he heard his reconnaissance team had been ambushed and was having trouble evacuating casualties. Butch hadn't been assigned to patrol because he was preparing to attend Navy diving school in the Philippines. Butch rushed to board a helicopter that was going to attempt to extract the team and insisted on joining the rescue effort. At the team's location, the thick jungle extended for miles and there were no available clearings that were suitable for the helicopter to land. Butch requested to be lowered by cable through the jungle canopy. Without regard for his own safety, Butch immediately organized the evacuation of the two most seriously wounded. Then continuing his brave mission he helped rescue the remaining team members. He administered first aid while directing fire to protect the team's escape. Butch was left on the ground because there was no additional room for him on the chopper. Alone in the jungle, Butch gathered the team's rifles and radios. Butch didn't know if they would be able to return for him because it was getting dark and he might have to stay the night and risk getting shot or taken prisoner. When a helicopter returned to hoist him out, Butch was dragged through heavy underbrush for hundreds of yards which caused multiple injuries. Once inside the helicopter, Butch had blood on his face, hat, and all the way to his boots. Butch had 3 rifles slung over each shoulder and a giant load of radio and other gear. Maj. Bobby Thatcher says he will never forget the look on Butch's bloody face--a huge smile and big white teeth. Butch's unmatched bravery resulted in the rescue of all the members of the reconnaissance team while under extreme combat conditions. Maj. Bobby Thatcher says Butch's actions were the single bravest thing he has ever seen, before or since. Butch's bold initiative, undaunted courage, and complete dedication to duty display the true meaning of selfless service. Butch finished his second tour of Vietnam in August 1968 and returned to the U.S. where he was promoted to second lieutenant while stationed in Hawaii. After 9 months in Hawaii, Butch volunteered, yet again, to return to Vietnam. Butch began his third tour of Vietnam in August 1969 and was assigned to the 1st Reconnaissance Battalion. Butch was eventually reassigned to the 3rd battalion, 5th Marine Regiment as platoon commander and promoted to company commander. After his third tour, Butch continued his service until August 1988. His distinguished 24 years of military service included serving as an instructor at Quantico, to the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. Butch retired to Nice, France for 7 years where he served as a body guard for a Saudi Arabian Princess and as security officer for the American International School. In 1995, Butch returned to the United States and lived in Colorado for a year. After visiting a friend Montana, Butch decided to move there in 1996. Butch served in the Montana Legislature in the early 2000s. Butch and his life partner Marilyn Wolff are members of the Montana Wilderness Association where they work to protect our state's public lands. It is my privilege to honor Butch Waddill's true heroism, sacrifice, and dedication to service by presenting him with the Silver Star Medal. Thank you, Butch.