Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, when we head to the Senate floor, we make choices. We first choose how to get here--whether to take the subway or walk. We choose whether to stop and talk to a colleague or two along the way. We also choose whether to speak to the press, and normally there are plenty of reporters available to speak to. I and many of my colleagues are often picky about who we talk to. I like talking to reporters just fine, but my staff gets a little nervous. Last week, after coming out of the secure briefing on the situation in the Middle East, I went up to the first reporter I saw, because in that briefing no one asked how much this war with ISIL would cost or how we were going to pay for it. At the end of the briefing I asked those questions myself. But it is telling that no one up to that point and time had voiced their concerns about costs, which leads me to ask: Are we putting another war in the Middle East on a credit card? Will it be added to our debt? Will our grandchildren once again have to pay for our choices today? I also asked what domestic programs will be cut if this war is an unpaid war. Will they cut improvements to our highways, Head Start, Violence Against Women Act funding? We are not having a real debate. We will be voting on whether to authorize the training of moderate Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic State. Earlier this year the President told us this would cost about $500 million. We can say this bill contains no specific dollar amount, but that is what this administration is going to spend, and that is just a start. This discussion will take less than half a day. We need more information. We have had some briefings and some of the committees up here have had some hearings, but the Senate needs a real debate on the extent of our involvement in Iraq and Syria and with ISIL. We need more information, and that is why I am speaking today and why I spoke to the press last week. After all, $500 million is a lot of money. That would go a long way in a State such as Montana where we need to upgrade our roads, bridges, fund pre-kindergarten education, and take care of our public lands. This week the President said he will spend up to $1 billion to combat the threat of Ebola in West Africa. I am not going to argue that there is a strong case for these requests. ISIL and Ebola are terrible in their own rights, and no one would think twice if we wiped them from the face of the Earth. But I do have questions about how we pay for these kinds of actions and what our long-term strategy is. The President requested $58 billion for additional defense spending for the 2015 fiscal year. That is spending on top of the $490 billion that is just a part of the normal Defense Department's budget. But the bill we are voting on today puts the defense budget on auto pilot. There is no chance to find other places to cut spending. There are no chances to raise revenue so we don't just put this new spending on the credit card and on the backs of our grandchildren. Folks will say this bill is only for 2 months. They will say that on December 11, when this bill expires, we can pursue the defense budget to cut programs that aren't working to pay for this new military action. But we all know that is a heavy lift in a city where it is easier to spend than it is to save, especially when we are already dipping our hands into the pot to fight ISIL and Ebola. Over a decade ago we sent American servicemembers to Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Americans lost sons and daughters, husbands and wives. Families made great personal sacrifices, but our government never asked us to sacrifice as a whole. We didn't raise taxes. We didn't cut spending. We didn't set aside money to take care of our veterans who returned from the battlefield with wounds both seen and unseen. As a result, combined with massive tax cuts, our deficit and our debt exploded. Now $500 million is a far cry from the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent in Iraq over the last decade, but this is just a start. We must stop putting wars on credit cards. I wonder if once we start an overseas conflict, do we know when and where it will stop? Do we know what our spending will achieve? Over the last 5 years, we have actually had some progress on deficit reduction. We reduced the deficit by two-thirds. But all that is at risk with the beginning of a new conflict. We simply have too many unanswered questions. The President says we are backed by a coalition of nations ready to join our fight against ISIS, but will it be a real coalition? Violent extremists are threats to peace-loving societies no matter where they are, and I agree with the President that we need to contain and destroy ISIL before it gets stronger. But only a real coalition, one that includes strong commitments of money, equipment, and manpower from Middle Eastern, Asian, South American, and European nations will lead to a long-term stability in that region. These allies should be footing their share of the bill. As I mentioned, Americans--whether today's taxpayers or tomorrow's--should not shoulder a disproportionate burden of the cost. After all, if countries such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey feel the growth of ISIL, they should make real commitments to this war-fighting effort. That is what happened during the first gulf war. In that war, members of the coalition contributed more than 80 percent of that war's costs. Because if ISIL is truly a worldwide problem, then there should be a worldwide response and commitment to addressing that problem. If ISIL is threatening to upset the balance of power in the Middle East, then Middle Eastern nations must step up. If terrorists and ISIL are a worldwide threat, then the world must step up. Anything else is unacceptable. Some say that in order to ensure world peace, America must be a world leader. They say no other country is prepared to be the world's policeman. World peace is important, but true peace stems from our ability to rally other nations to our cause. When we convince someone of the merit of our argument, when we form strong alliances that stand the test of time, when we act in concert with other nations, our word and our acts become stronger, and the world's respect grows. We are told today that other countries will respond, that other folks are joining the fight. But actions speak louder than words. I, for one, would like to see more of it before I vote to commit America's taxpayers' money to this fight. Eleven years ago, we invaded Iraq without a real coalition, and we built our argument on false pretenses. Moving forward, we must have a real debate, a sound strategy, and an end game. This body is historically the world's greatest deliberative body. It was here that men such as Daniel Webster and Henry Clay deliberated. We are not having that kind of debate today. We are not gathering more information. There were committee hearings this week, but the die is cast, the wheels are in motion. As we say in Montana, the horse is out of the barn, the cows are out to pasture. There are 1,600 American troops in Iraq right now who deserve a real debate. Many of them have husbands, wives, children, families. I do not know that I can say with certainty to them: Don't worry, we are training the right people to fight on the ground in Syria. If America is wrong about who we train and who we arm in Syria, my fear is that these 1,600 servicemembers will be joined again by tens of thousands more. For their sake and the sake of the American taxpayer, we need a fuller debate that will have a real impact on the decisionmaking process here in this Senate, and more of that debate should have happened before now. I serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee. I know we must fund the government and prevent a shutdown. That is the responsible thing to do. The cost of last year's shutdown on Montana business was extraordinary and unnecessary, and I do not want to repeat that fiasco. That is why I will be voting for that continuing resolution later today. I know some folks are opposed to this continuing resolution because they think we should pass appropriations bills individually. I appreciate that and I agree. But the fact is, the Appropriations Committee--under the chairmanship of Chairwoman Mikulski, who is on the floor right now, and Senator Shelby--has worked hard and worked in a bipartisan way to try to make that happen. They have tried to reinvigorate this committee and make sure the Senate fulfills our constitutional responsibility to make the hard choices about how we spend taxpayers' money. Ironically, some of the folks who have said they don't like passing the CR are the very same folks who have made it harder to pass the bipartisan bills that come out of that Appropriations Committee. Talk about playing down to the American people's already low expectations for Congress. So we have no choice other than to pass the CR today. But I am tired of spending without a plan. I am tired of getting caught up in fighting wars in the Middle East, performing the same actions and expecting a different result. I am tired of repeating history without learning its lessons. We can do better. And for the sake of our troops, for the sake of our taxpayers, for the sake of our kids, for the fate of our Nation and the world, we must. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Who Is The Economy Working For? The Impact of Rising Inequality on the American Economy.''

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2014, in room S-216 of the Capitol Building.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 17, 2014, at 10:30 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Why Net Neutrality Matters: Protecting Consumers and Competition Through Meaningful Open Internet Rules.''

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD- 430 of the Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate September 17, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2014.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2014, at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reforming America's Outdated Energy Tax Code.''

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``United States Strategy to Defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.''

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 17, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, some of my colleagues will be coming to the floor later today to speak about the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and I am sorry I am not going to be able to join them, but LWCF is very important, especially to Montana, and so I want to make my voice heard this morning. LWCF turned 50 earlier this month. Passed during the Johnson administration, LCWF harkens back to the time when folks reached across the aisle to conserve our treasured lands--treasured lands that exist in all corners of our Nation. LWCF has contributed to the protection of well-known places such as Rocky Mountain National Park and the Appalachian Trail, but it has also supported lesser known but equally spectacular places such as Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee, Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Idaho, and the Flathead National Forest in my State of Montana. America is filled with amazing lands that make us stand in awe of their beauty, make us want to go out and explore, make us want to hunt, fish, and camp. We must make sure they are preserved for our future generations to enjoy just as we have been able to enjoy it. From hunters and anglers to ranchers and sporting goods store owners, LWCF is a program that simply works. It uses the funds from offshore oil and gas receipts for a wide array of conservation programs. Some of these programs increase access to public lands, others preserve natural resources. LWCF is also good for the economy. When people want to get out and enjoy the outdoors, they buy fly rods, tents, and hiking boots. The list goes on and on. Simply put, LWCF is an economic driver. America's outdoor economy generates nearly $650 billion each year and supports nearly 6 million direct jobs in many of this Nation's smallest communities. In Montana, a State with only 1 million people, outdoor recreation contributes nearly $6 billion each year to our economic output and supports some 64,000 jobs in Montana. Outdoor recreation is a part of who we are as Montanans, and when I drive across the State, I often see vehicles with stickers in the back window that say, ``Get Lost,'' but what those stickers are really saying is: I am headed to a trailhead and I am going to get lost in some of the wild places in Big Sky Country. This way of life is passed down from generation to generation and the LWCF helps us keep our outdoor heritage alive. We have come to expect a vibrant outdoor economy and amazing places to explore, but we need to remember this didn't happen by accident. It isn't by chance that we get to enjoy water and breathtaking landscapes. As one of my many heroes Teddy Roosevelt said: ``We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible, this is not so.'' We invest in our majestic national park system, preserve lands from Alaska to Florida, and we have millions of people dedicated to conservation nationwide. LWCF is a critical part of our conservation effort, and if it is not authorized, it will run out at the end of the next fiscal year. As of right now, LWCF will stop strengthening our economy as of October 1, 2015. We must fund and reauthorize LWCF so our treasured places can be preserved for another 50 years and well beyond. There is still time to make sure this critical initiative continues and receives the full funding it needs. Full funding for LWCF is supported by both Republicans and Democrats. I wish to commend Senators Richard Burr and Lindsey Graham for their work on LWCF, and I look forward to working with them on full funding for this issue. I will also push my legislation that requires 1.5 percent of LWCF funds to go to increased public access to our public lands. Making public lands public is a smart bill, and I will continue to fight for it. There is a strong coalition behind LWCF, and I believe we can get this done by working together. Along with leaders in both the House and the Senate, we will show the American people we are still capable of working across the aisle to preserve our treasured lands and support our local economies. Montanans have favorite places to camp and fish and hike. It may be the Bitterroot, it may be the Crazies or it may be the Bob Marshall Wilderness, but we all love the outdoors. We all want to make sure our sons and daughters can enjoy the same beautiful outdoor places that we do today. This is our legacy. LWCF is a critical part of making sure all Americans can continue their outdoor traditions. It must be around for another 50 years and beyond. With that, I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 17, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a legislative hearing to consider the following bill: S. 2670, a bill to prohibit gaming activities on certain Indian land in Arizona until the expiration of certain gaming compacts. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, as many of you know, my wife and I still farm, and for part of August I had the pleasure to be able to be on the tractor and have some quality time to think about what makes our Nation great. There are many reasons, but one of them is the belief that everyone has a say in the decisions we make in this democracy, that each of us--from the richest to the poorest--has an equal stake in electing our leaders and impacting how we govern. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not figured that out. From the Citizens United case to this year's McCutcheon decision, the Justices continually side with big money and corporations. They are siding with those who think government should work for the rich and the elite. They are siding with those who think that money equals speech and think it is OK for the wealthy to drown out the voices of the working folks, of the middle class, of everyone else. Our current election system is hurting our democracy by reducing public confidence in our elections and increasing apathy in the political process. After all, why should someone take time out to follow our political process and vote when our system leads them to believe their vote does not make a difference? We simply cannot let that happen. I agree with my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, when he says that sooner or later our current system is going to cause a scandal in this body. This body cannot afford to fall further out of favor with the American people. After all, negative numbers are right around the corner. The unprecedented amount of money--much of it unaccountable and anything but transparent--is allowing corporations to have an outsized say in not just who gets elected but how they act once they get into office. And trust me, corporate voices already have plenty of influence in Congress. It is putting up walls between regular folks and elected leaders who spend more and more hours on the phone with donors or bowing to those who might finance an outside ad campaign on their behalf and leaves less time for constituents. Too many of the Justices--and too many of our colleagues--do not understand that many of Washington's current problems are tied to our campaign finance system. A lot of folks in the Senate and the House talk about working together. They talk about reaching across the aisle for responsible solutions that move our country forward. So what is holding them back? In many cases, it is the threat of big money coming after them in their next election. We are not talking about Rick who works at Walmart or Amanda who teaches third grade chipping in $20 for a candidate they believe in. We are talking about corporate executives plowing millions--sometimes tens of millions--of dollars into independent and often secretly financed campaigns. We have all seen colleagues hesitate to introduce legislation that is popular in their home State but were afraid it would spur big-moneyed outside groups to spend millions of dollars to defeat them. When that happens, it leaves constituents without any real say in who represents them. Lawmakers are also held back by the hostile political climate that these expensive campaigns create. When you constantly see an ad that distorts your record, and then you see a fellow Senator from out of State endorse that ad, it makes it hard to compromise on legislation with somebody that, quite frankly, you do not trust. Politicians also know that most of the money in campaigns is on the extremes of the political spectrum. And the extremes fight almost any sign of compromise and the folks who are willing to get things done. Heck, why are we having trouble confirming ambassadors? It is because ``compromise'' is a dirty word. It leads me to wonder: Could we do big things today like our predecessors did? Could we pull it together to build an Interstate Highway System or send a man to the Moon? Right now I think not. Supporters of the current system defend their views by citing the Constitution. They put up some fun charts here on the Senate floor that cross out lines of the First Amendment, pretending as if this legislation actually changes the First Amendment. It is entertaining, but it is incorrect. I guarantee you that our Founding Fathers--men such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson--would not want to see the Constitution used to justify our current campaign system. Leaders such as Washington and Jefferson had a vision for our Nation. They knew America would change with the times as new technologies were developed and new lands came into the Union. Back in 1787 there was no Montana. If the Framers warned against political parties, I can only imagine what they would have to say about the rise of super PACs. Folks who support Citizens United talk about protecting free speech and the First Amendment, but who is protecting the free speech of regular working-class folks? Who is protecting the voice of the schoolteacher or the repairman being drowned out by special interests? With this amendment, we are. If the Congress needs inspiration, they should look at my home State of Montana. More than 100 years ago Montanans voted to limit the influence of Big Money elections. We were ahead of the curve. We called for fair elections after wealthy mining corporations bought influence, support, and even a U.S. Senate seat--and our laws worked pretty well for those 100 years. But 2 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Montana's law, citing its own Citizens United decision. In 2012, Montanans stood once again to Big Money and its influence over a democratic process. In a voter referendum passed by a 3-to-1 margin, Montana voters called on Montana's congressional delegation to overturn Citizens United, and I proudly accepted that challenge. That is why I am cosponsoring Senator Udall's amendment. Together we are saying enough is enough. Congress and the States should have the power to regulate campaign spending to ensure that election spending does not corrupt elections. States should be able to decide whether to allow corporations' unchecked spending power in Governor and legislative races. I heard one of my colleagues suggest yesterday that we are threatening to silence the voice of the little old lady who wants to put up a yard sign in front of her home. In fact, it is quite the opposite. We are working to ensure that her voice is louder than that Fortune 500 corporation--or at least as loud--when deciding the future of her town, her State or her country because that is what our country is supposed to be about, one person, one vote. Spending for the Senate election in Montana in 2012 topped $50 million. That is more than $100 for every vote cast. In a State such as Montana, where the average household pulled in $45,000 in 2012, that is a big sum of money. It is the kind of money that can buy a lot of ads come election season. It can give a platform to drown out any other voice. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, spending by outside groups in this 2014 election cycle is currently three times higher than the amount spent at the same point in 2010, and as of the end of August, outside groups have spent about $170 million on Federal midterm races--just the Federal part. Folks don't spend that kind of cash without thinking they are going to get a return on investment. Things are out of control, make no mistake. Senator McCain is right. Sooner or later it will lead to another Watergate or worse, and that is what is frustrating. We know how the story of unchecked money in politics ends. We have seen it before. Yet the Supreme Court has opened the door to yet another scandal. So it is time to overturn Citizens United, and it is time to overturn this year's McCutcheon decision which invalidated a 40-year-old law that limits the total amount of money an individual can contribute to campaigns each cycle. Since that ruling in April, about 300 folks have taken advantage of that ruling, contributing over $11.5 million to political campaigns this year--just since April--300 in this Nation of 300 million. We must put regular people and their ideas back in charge of our elections. Amending the Constitution is not something we should take lightly. The Constitution is our founding document, and it has held up under the test of time. But Big Money interests and defenders of Citizens United are distorting our First Amendment for their own gain. Getting Big Money out of elections is critical to improving how we govern, to make responsible decisions for all Americans. It is critical to electing leaders who put people first. I am proud to step forward in this fight. Our democratic system has worked for over two centuries. It has made our Nation the greatest Nation in the world, and I will not let that be jeopardized without a fight. Back in Montana it doesn't matter whether someone has 5 acres or 5,000 acres: They jump on that tractor, and that tractor is still going to break down; the weather can be good, the weather can be bad. It is still going to happen. The lesson is this. We are in this together, we all need to pitch in, and we all deserve a fair and honest say in how our election process works and our leaders are elected. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Udall on this important amendment. It is simply the right thing to do for our democracy. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I wish to honor Edmond Lee Juneau, a veteran of the U.S. Army. It is my honor to share the story of Edmond's service because no veteran's story should ever go unrecognized. Edmond was born in Green Bay, WI, on November 9, 1920, but grew up in Browning, MT, where he was known for his tremendous athleticism, playing football, basketball, and baseball. He graduated from Browning High School and married the love of his life Margie Bird Juneau. He and Margie had eight children: seven boys and one girl. On June 22, 1944, Edmond began his service in the U.S. Army with the 69th Armored Infantry Battalion Company A. He served alongside his cousin William ``Bill'' Big Springs and former Montana Governor, Tim Babcock. Edmond and Tim became close friends, and it was their time overseas that built a strong bond between the two men. Edmond served in three different campaigns: Rhineland, the Ardennes, and Central Europe. Edmond didn't talk much about the war but told his son Stan one specific memory. Near the end of the war, Edmond and his fellow soldiers were sitting on their tanks at the Russian border waiting for orders to advance. The Russians, just a short distance away, were also sitting on their tanks waiting for their orders. The orders never came, so at night the two units would come together and talk. Edmond was doing diplomacy with the Russians before the Cold War even started. Edmond separated from the military on October 23, 1945, passing on his military legacy to his family. Three of his sons, Edmond Jr., Samson, and Robert, all went on to bravely serve our country. Edmond's life of service extended far beyond the military. His work as a schoolbus driver and officer for the Browning Public Schools demonstrates an unwavering commitment to civic duty and responsibility. Edmond passed away on September 20, 1967. Last week, in the presence of his family, it was my honor to present Stan Juneau and the entire Juneau family with Edmond's medals. The first medal was the highest medal I had ever given out: the Distinguished Service Medal. It is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, has distinguished him or herself with exceptionally meritorious service to the government in a duty of great responsibility. The act must merit recognition for service which is clearly exceptional. Edmond also earned the following medals: the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, and the Good Conduct Medal. It was my honor to present a European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with Three Bronze Service Stars, a World War II Victory Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge First Award. I was also honored to present the Sharpshooter Badge with Rifle Bar and the Honorable Service Lapel Button, World War II. These decorations are small tokens but powerful symbols of true heroism, sacrifice, and dedication to service. These medals are presented on behalf of a grateful nation.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 10, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct an oversight hearing to receive testimony on ``Irrigation Projects in Indian Country.'' Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I honor Mayor Joseph Calnan, of Anaconda, MT. It is with pride that I recognize his dedication and service to those Montanans who most needed a helping hand. Joseph Calnan believed in the value of hard work. He spent 30 years working for the Butte Anaconda Pacific Railroad. Each night he returned home for dinner with his wife and seven children before heading out to his second job at a local store. The only interruption in his long career was the 4 years he spent working as the mayor of Anaconda. Mayor ``Joe'' Calnan took office in 1963 and immediately began fighting for a better Anaconda. He worked to beautify Anaconda's Common, taking it from a weedy field to the lush, tree-filled park it is today. Joe fought to open land for business development at a time when one in five Americans was living below the poverty line. He knew the importance of creating jobs so hardworking folks would have a chance to provide for their families. His own children still remember him saying time and again, ``We have plenty of picnic tables in Anaconda. But without jobs, there won't be food to put on those tables.'' As he worked on the local level, Joe also kept an eye on national politics. On August 20 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act into law, creating the Job Corps. Job Corps allows young people from low income families to get the training they needed to enter the workforce, free of charge. Joe began his campaign to bring a Job Corps center to Anaconda immediately. First, Joe wrote to Sergeant Shriver, Special Assistant to the President, to request the establishment of a Job Corps center at the Forest Creek Picnic Area just west of Anaconda. He received an encouraging reply, and traveled to Washington to meet with Senators Mike Mansfield and Lee Metcalf and Representative Arnold Olsen to finalize his proposal. When the first three Job Corps students arrived in Anaconda in 1966, they got off the bus to find Joe waiting there for them in his personal car. Through a partnership with the Forest Service, the Job Corps program thrived at the Anaconda Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center. The Anaconda Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center has graduated over 14,000 students since it opened its door, over 160 students are currently enrolled, and most importantly, 86 percent of enrolled students get jobs. On August 20, Job Corps celebrated its 50th anniversary. At the Anaconda Center, the Forest Service dedicated its newly completed dining hall to Mayor Calnan in honor of his hard work to bring the Job Corps to his town. While Joe has passed away, his children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren were there to celebrate the event. Job Corps students had created the metal sign dedicating the dining hall, the same sort of hard-working young people that Joe spent so much time helping during his time as mayor. They put it best. The sign reads simply, ``Joseph F. Calnan Thank You for Your Vision.''

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting to consider the following bills: S. 1948, A bill to promote the academic achievement of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children with the establishment of a Native American language grant program; S. 2299, A bill to amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to reauthorize a provision to ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Native American languages; S. 2442, A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to take certain land and mineral rights on the reservation of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Montana and other culturally important land into trust for the benefit of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and for other purposes; S. 2465, A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to take into trust 4 parcels of Federal land for the benefit of certain Indian Pueblos in the State of New Mexico; S. 2479, A bill to provide for a land conveyance in the State of Nevada; S. 2480, A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land to Elko County, Nevada, and to take land into trust for certain Indian tribes, and for other purposes and H.R. 4002, An act to revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma at the request of that tribe, and for other purposes. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I have come to realize that we are never going to get politics completely out of the legislative process. In the system we have today, there is always another election and there is always another campaign. This political posturing must be addressed. It is hurting our democracy, and it is a prime reason Congress's approval rating is in the single digits. Today politics is hurting the men and women who bravely served our Nation. It is hurting our veterans. When the news about the problems at the VA became public, lawmakers ran to the press and slammed the VA. They called for reform and accountability. They even dragged good men through the mud to score political points. Members from both sides of the aisle said politics needed to be set aside because if there is just one thing that should cause our politicians to look past political games, it is our veterans. It is our commitment to our veterans, our commitment to making sure they get the care they have earned. But today some lawmakers decided to forgo the hard work of compromise. Instead of putting veterans first, they have made improving veterans care political. We have been working for 6 weeks to find a compromise bill that improves veterans' access to care, that holds the VA more accountable, and that hires more medical professionals so veterans can get the care they need when they need it. But for 6 weeks Members on the other side of the aisle in both the House and the Senate have balked at the cost of taking care of our veterans. Many of these lawmakers are the same ones--the same ones--who put our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on a credit card. Many of them didn't blink twice when we sent hundreds of troops into Iraq earlier this month. Way back when, when the Iraq war was authorized, Congress spent less than 3 weeks debating Iraq. But now when it comes to taking care of our men and women who served--many in the same wars they put on a credit card--they worry about the cost. Well, I have news for them: Taking care of our veterans is a cost of war. We do not send young Americans to war and then not take care of them. And it should not be the case that we rush to war but drag our feet when it comes to our vets. Republicans today will announce they are forgoing the veterans conference committee and introducing a bill of their own. It is not a proposal aimed at benefiting our veterans. It is not. It is not a bill that takes the best ideas of veterans organizations, experts, or VA officials and moves the ball forward. It is a proposal that is meant to gain political favor. It is a proposal that sheds the responsibility of governing, of honoring our commitment to veterans. It is a proposal that is aimed at the November election. Chairman Sanders has been working hard to bridge the divide and produce a bill that gets veterans the support they need and can pass in Congress, but Chairman Sanders can't do it himself, and neither can just one-half of the conference committee. I am incredibly disappointed by what is taking place today. I had real hopes that this conference committee could rise above the political process and get something done for our veterans. I have been holding listening sessions with Montana's veterans since early June. They didn't have much faith. Those veterans did not have much faith in Washington politicians solving the problem, but I told them it could be done. If we don't change course, if we don't leave politics at the door as we promised, then it is going to be hard for me to go back to Montana and look those veterans in the eye. We can do better, and we must do better. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, are we in morning business?