Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. The Mansfield Foundation has been committed to carrying out this mission since it was established in 1983. For the past 30 years, the Foundation has offered important opportunities for U.S. and Asian leaders in government and business to exchange views and build relationships that strengthen cooperation between our countries. These exchanges, policy dialogues, and research and education opportunities are the legacies of Mike Mansfield's passion for broader cultural understanding.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, respect and admiration for Mike Mansfield reached beyond his Montana roots to Washington, where he shaped the character of the modern Senate as the longest-serving Senate Majority Leader. It also reached across the Pacific, where he combined his voice of wisdom and sense of moderation with his love of Asian culture and became the longest-serving U.S. ambassador to Japan.

Mr. TESTER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to speak on this bill. It is called the Marketplace Fairness Act. It will not do anything but damage to the marketplace, in my opinion. This bill will impose new burdens on our small businesses. Let me repeat that. It will place new burdens on our small businesses. I have heard folks come to the floor and talk about how great this is going to be for small businesses. This is going to be terrible for small businesses. Small businesses are going to have to bring on more people. This is going to be more bureaucracy, with more accountants, more lawyers. This should be called the bill to employ more attorneys and more CPAs. The fact is, I do not think the attorneys want this kind of work, nor do the CPAs want this kind of work, because what it will do is fundamentally alter the rights of States by allowing them to tax entities outside their borders. Who is put at risk by this? Small businesses. If the small business screws up, by the way, they are the ones who are held accountable. We talk about this big old database out there that these folks are going to be able to dub into to determine what the sales tax is for a single entity of the 9,600 cities and States and municipalities that collect sales tax. If the business gets it wrong, they are the ones that have the penalty. I am going to tell you that small businesses are not that profitable to be able to go through this kind of an exercise. In Montana we are in a little different situation. In Montana our budget has a surplus because we have handled our money wisely. Montanans do not pay a sales tax, we do not have a sales tax, and the people of the State of Montana have twice voted against having one. But our budget continues to operate with a surplus without that sales tax. Now we are going to have other States balance their budgets on the backs of Montana's hard-working small businesses. It is wrong and, quite frankly, it is insulting. In fact, Virginia--right close here-- has already counted these funds as part of their budgeting for a new transportation plan. I would say this is bad policy that I hope--I know what the cloture vote was yesterday--people take a look at because this is not the direction this body should be going. At a bare minimum, we should send this bill to committee and let the Finance Committee deal with it. This has some real problems. It has real problems from an implementation standpoint. If we go down this road, it is a very slippery slope; it is going to create more bureaucracy; it is going to create more burdens for small businesses, including new liabilities for incorrectly collecting this sales tax, as I talked about before. There are 9,600--let me say it again--there are 9,600 cities, States, and municipalities that collect taxes--different taxes: higher taxes on candy than in a different jurisdiction, sometimes no taxes on food. The list goes on and on and on. It also leaves questions unanswered about how this could impose new taxes on financial transactions and 401(k) plans. It is bad policy. What businesses will out-of-State tax collectors go after next? It is an aberration of States rights--rights which so many in this Chamber have supported. It is a situation where we are going down a road that, quite frankly, we have not gone down before from a States rights standpoint. If we do this, I think it opens a Pandora's box, so to speak, as to new rules, new laws that potentially come down, using this as a basis for it. As I said before, I empathize with the situation of States that have had their budgets underwater. But they ought not be looking at other States' small businesses--in our case Montana's small businesses--to get their budgets in balance. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. It would gut States rights. It would impose new tax burdens on small businesses and middle-class Americans. Quite frankly, this is bad policy, and we should not be passing bad policy around here. I thank the Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Dean E. Galles, a decorated US Army combat veteran of World War II. Dean, on behalf of all Montanans and all Americans, I stand to say ``thank you'' for your service to this Nation. It is my honor to share the remarkable story of Dean's service in World War II. Dean was born November 9, 1919 in Broadview, MT, a small prairie town on a rail spur. As a boy, Dean's family moved to Billings where his father continued in business. Dean looked up to his father as a role model throughout his life. In 1937, Dean graduated from high school in Billings and enrolled at the University of Montana, where he also participated in the Army Reserve Officer's Training Corps. Dean graduated in the spring of 1941 and became a commissioned officer in the 7th Infantry Division, U.S. Army. Lieutenant Galles sailed with his division to attack Japanese forces occupying Attu and Kiska Islands in the Aleutian chain, the westernmost group of Alaskan islands. Upon landing, the American forces were left with the daunting task of removing Japanese troops firmly entrenched on high ground. At dawn on May 29, 1943, the Japanese commander ordered a desperate, all-out assault on the American forces, which is believed to be the largest banzai charge in World War II's Pacific theater of operation. In spite of the extreme cold weather and high casualties, American forces prevailed. Sometime during the battle, Dean was bayoneted twice and left for dead. In spite of his wounds, Lieutenant Galles struggled two miles to alert other Americans. On April 7, 1945, then-Captain Galles led an American assault on a Japanese force entrenched on the island of Okinawa. With complete disregard for personal hazards, he moved across open, fire-swept terrain and directed the successful attack. During the confrontation, Captain Galles was wounded a third time and received the Silver Star medal for heroism. Dean is still impacted today due to the Japanese bullet in his chest from wounds received on Okinawa. Following the third injury, Dean returned to Billings where his wife lived, and he began a successful business. After retirement, Dean has been active in veterans' and civic organizations, where he continues to be a source of inspiration, courage, and patriotism. A fellow veteran recently asked Dean what would he say to Americans yet unborn? In a now frail, but resolute, voice, Mr. Galles replied, ``America is worth fighting for; I hope they keep on fighting.'' Seventy years would pass before the Army would award Dean the Bronze Star medal for Valor for his actions on Attu Island. Mr. President, on behalf of a grateful Nation, I commend Mr. Galles and his service to America.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, on April 21, 88 World War II veterans from Montana will be visiting our Nation's Capital. With a great deal of honor and respect, I extend a hearty Montana welcome to each and every one of them. Together they will visit the World War II Memorial and share stories about their service. This journey will no doubt bring about a lot of memories, and I hope it will give them a deep sense of pride as well. What they achieved together seven decades ago was remarkable. The memorial is a testament to the fact a grateful nation will never forget what they did or what they sacrificed. To us, they are the ``greatest generation.'' They left the comforts of their family and their communities to confront evil from Iwo Jima to Bastogne. Together they won the war in the Pacific by defeating an empire and liberating the continent by destroying Hitler and the Nazis. To them, they were simply doing their jobs. They enlisted in unprecedented numbers to defend our freedoms and our values. They represented the very best of us and made us proud. From a young age, I remember playing the bugle at the memorial services of veterans of the first two World Wars. It instilled in me a profound sense of respect which will be with me forever. Honoring the service of every generation of American veterans is a Montana value. I deeply appreciate the work of the Big Sky Honor Flight, the nonprofit organization which made this trip possible. To the World War II veterans making the trip, I salute you and welcome you to our Nation's Capital. We will always be grateful, and we will never forget your service or your sacrifice. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life and legacy of George Paul Horse Capture Sr., who passed away yesterday in Great Falls, MT. George was a member of the A'aninin--Gros Ventre--tribe. He was born in 1937 in the Little Chicago neighborhood on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. George had a remarkable life filled with service to his people and to our country. Early in life, he served in the U.S. Navy, became the only minority person serving as a California State Steel inspector at the time and was educated at the University of California--Berkeley. When he was hired as the Curator of the Plains Indian Museum at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, WY in 1979, George became one of the first Native American curators in the United States. During his time as curator, he worked closely with a number of Northern Plains Indian tribes to ensure they played a role in the museum exhibitions. George spent a decade in our Nation's Capital, serving in various capacities at the National Museum of the American Indian at the Smithsonian Institution. He played a key role in the development and construction of the new museum facility that opened in 2004. During his time at the National Museum of the American Indian, George led the charge to return many sacred objects to the appropriate tribes. The repatriation of those objects was part of George's lifelong mission to empower Indian people. George's life and his commitment to his people and his community is a reminder of the power of each individual to make a difference. Our thoughts and prayers are with George's widow, Kay Karol, and all of his family and many friends.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Exactly. So you zip down to the local gun store, wherever it might be in your town, do the background check. Then you do not have to worry about if, in fact, that person has a criminal past or is severely, violently mentally ill. It will be there. There is also language in this bill that if a State is not putting information in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, money is pulled back. In the State of Montana, I believe it is about 10 percent. In the State of Montana, that is serious dollars. It is well over $100,000 to be pulled back. Would the Senator from West Virginia like to talk about the thinking that went into that and how this could impact the background checks?

Mr. TESTER. Well, the bottom line is, I think this puts into effect real incentives to keep this National Instant Criminal Background Check System database up to snuff. There is also a Commission on Mass Violence in this bill, which I think is good policy as we move forward, as we find almost on a daily basis some incident which has happened and is unacceptable. The bottom line--and I know the Senator has talked about this a lot during the presentation of his bill. He has spoken about something called common sense. This would ensure when we do a background check it actually is a background check. This bill will not solve all the violence problems in this country, not even close. Is it a step in the right direction while protecting my second amendment rights? Yes, it is. Does it take away my guns? Does it stop my ability to go out and buy any guns I could buy today? No, it does not. Does it have any impact on things like assault rifles or big, large magazine clips? No, it does not. What it does is once the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is up to snuff, it will contain people who have a history of violence who used guns improperly. It will prevent people who are violently mentally ill from going out there and purchasing a gun. If we are able to work together in a bipartisan way, as the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Pennsylvania have done, hopefully, we may move forward with some issues and policies which deal with mental health in this country, an issue we have not dealt with well as a society, or the stigma associated with it. If we can do this there are other amendments we may potentially put on this bill as we move forward. If the amendments have commonsense backing and protect the second amendment, we should take a hard look at them and have a debate on those also. The bottom line is I want my second amendment rights protected. I want law-abiding citizens in this country to be able to continue to purchase firearms. I want my kids to be able to do that, my grandkids to be able to do that. I think this bill ensures that. I thank the sponsors for their hard work. I yield for the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senators from West Virginia and Pennsylvania. I rise to talk about the Toomey-Manchin amendment, knowing this is not an end-all when it comes to violence in America. We have to do some things that revolve around mental health, mental illness, how we treat that, how we move forward in ways that make sense for folks who believe strongly in the second amendment, but also believe in how we make our communities safer. So whether it is the Toomey-Manchin amendment or whether it is some other amendment that may came up during this debate, or whether it is an amendment that deals with mental health and how we treat it and how we get professionals out there on the ground, this is a very important issue for folks in this country. The second amendment is very important. I now want to give a little bit of background, which most of the Senators know. I come from a farming background. My grandparents came to our farm a little over 100 years ago. When my folks took the place over, my dad set up a custom butcher shop. For 20 years my wife Sharla and I ran that custom butcher shop. That means every morning, literally every morning, I would get up and we would go knock down a beef or a pork with a gun. I literally made a good portion of my living on the farm with a gun. It was a tool. It was a way that kept us on the farm. It was a way that kept our farm economically viable. But you do not have to be a butcher to know the value of a gun. In Montana, we have sports men and women who literally start hunting at a very early age and know how to handle a gun. They know responsible gun ownership when they see it. They know irresponsible gun ownership when they see that too. Right now, anybody can go out and buy a gun. In some States where the national instant crime background check is not very good, literally anybody, whether they have a criminal record or history of violent mental illness, can go out and buy a gun. I think what we are trying to do, what Senators Manchin and Toomey are trying to do with this amendment is to make the second amendment stronger for the people who are law-abiding gun owners but yet trying to keep guns out of the hands of folks who cannot handle them in a responsible way, and have a record of that--a court-adjudicated record. As we move forward and talk about the things this bill does positively and negatively, I want to tell you, I have read it forwards and backwards. I have talked to folks. I can tell you this makes my second amendment rights stronger. For that I thank you. Here is how it does it: My second amendment rights are only put at risk by people who use guns in an improper way. This bipartisan agreement makes sure we protect that second amendment for responsible gun owners, not just in a willy-nilly way, by the way. This clearly defines what irresponsible gun ownership is. It fixes the underlying bill that, quite frankly, I moved to move forward on. But without this amendment I could not support it. It does some positive things like lets gun dealers sell firearms across State lines at gun shows. That is new. It improves the process by which someone can get their rights restored. This is a big one for me. We have veterans returning from Iran and Afghanistan, by the way, who need treatment, can go get treatment. This bill does not impact them whatsoever. On the other hand, if somebody has a serious problem, gets put on a list, they have the ability through this law to be able to get off that list once they prove they can handle that gun ownership responsibly. There has been a lot of talk about gun registries. This bill prohibits it from the Department of Justice. The way the world is right now I think it is fair to say nothing changes: No gun registry now. No gun registry after this amendment is passed. In fact, this strictly prohibits it when it comes to the Department of Justice. There are protections in here for veterans to make sure they are treated fairly by the system. I serve on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Montana has the second most per capita number of veterans in the country. It is important--it was true in Vietnam, but especially with Iraq and Afghanistan--that these folks are able to get the treatment they need without impacting their second amendment rights. I think we are clear on that. It does not impact them in a negative way. If you want to give a gun to your son or daughter or you want to sell it to your neighbors or friends, there is no background check required. Active military can buy a gun in their home State or the station where they are, not just their duty station. It allows for a concealed carry permit to be used in lieu of a background check. But the bottom line is it does not impact my second amendment rights whatsoever. I was on the tractor this weekend seeding a few peas and a little bit of barley. On the radio came a show called ``Tradio,'' where if you have something you want to sell, you put it on the radio. One of the things that was being sold was a .308 rifle. Under this bill, if I put a .308 rifle on the radio, and Patrick Toomey calls me and says he wants to buy that gun, I can. Patrick Toomey is a friend of mine. We can sell it; no background check. But if someone I do not know calls, then we whip down to the local store, do a quick background check, which takes--well, I will ask Senator Manchin from West Virginia. How long does a background check typically take on an individual buying a gun?

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President. On April 21, 88 World War II veterans from Montana will be visiting our Nation's Capital. With a great deal of honor and respect, I extend a hearty Montana welcome to each and every one of them. Together, they will visit the World War II Memorial and share stories about their service. This journey will no doubt bring about a lot of memories. I hope it will give them a deep sense of pride as well. What they achieved together almost 70 years ago was remarkable. That memorial is a testament to the fact that a grateful nation will never forget what they did or what they sacrificed. To us, they were our greatest generation. They left the comforts of their family and their communities to confront evil from Iwo Jima to Bastogne. Together, they won the war in the Pacific by defeating an empire and liberated a continent by destroying Hitler and the Nazis. To them, they were simply doing their jobs. They enlisted in unprecedented numbers to defend our freedoms and our values. They represented the very best of us and made us proud. From a young age, I remember playing the bugle at the memorial services of veterans of the first two World Wars. It instilled in me a profound sense of respect that I will never forget. Honoring the service of every generation of American veterans is a Montana value. I deeply appreciate the work of the Big Sky Honor Flight, the nonprofit organization that made this trip possible. To the World War II veterans making the trip, I salute you. We will always be grateful, and we will never forget your service or your sacrifice.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I rise on behalf of amendment No. 537. First of all, I thank Senator Coons and Senator Heller for cosponsoring this amendment. It would allow the children under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, otherwise known as CHAMP-VA, to remain eligible for coverage until their 26th birthday. These children are the children of veterans who have been rated permanently and totally disabled and children of veterans who have died from a service-connected disability or service- connected disease. With the enactment of the Affordable Health Care Act, children up to 26 years of age can now be covered on their parents' health insurance if they are unable to receive health insurance from their employers. In contrast to private insurance plans, or TRICARE, children under the CHAMP-VA program are only eligible for coverage until age 18 or 23 if they are a full-time enrolled student. This amendment is offered on their behalf to allow them to be on the CHAMP-VA program up to age 26.

Mr. TESTER. I thank the senior Senator from Montana. I thank the Senator for allowing me to be a part of this discussion. This is an incredible overreach. The Senator from Wyoming talked about the fact that they are not forcing a sales tax on any State, but that is what this does. This amendment will require our small businesses to collect taxes from other States. This is an incredible violation. It changes the entire standard for tax collection. It is not a road anyone wants to go down. Yet we are going to allow businesses in Tennessee or Illinois or Wyoming or any other State in the Union that has a sales tax to walk into my State and tell my small businesses that they are going to collect taxes for other States. Who is going to pay for that and who is going to do the audit? The Senator from New Hampshire said it is a job-killing bill. Well, it is a job-killing bill, but it is a great job creator in the bureaucracy. We are going to create bureaucracy in this government for tax collection like we have never seen before. There will be auditing like we have never seen before. Who pays for it? I guarantee it is not fair to force this kind of tax collection for another State and then tell another State what they have to do to collect taxes. It makes no sense. There are State and local taxes. There are all sorts of different mechanisms here. If there is a State that collects a 5-percent tax and another one that collects 10 percent, the business that has a 5-percent sales tax will have to collect another 5 percent and bring it back to that other State. Does it sound complicated? It is. It is very complicated. We do not want to go down this road. This is a bad, bad, bad public policy. I encourage everyone in this Chamber and everyone who is watching on C-SPAN to vote this amendment down.

Mr. TESTER. Too many.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Perfect. Let me also take 2 minutes to comment on an amendment that some of my colleagues spoke of that will be filed to this resolution. It is an amendment that would not only impose new burdens on small businesses but would also fundamentally alter the rights of States by allowing them to tax entities located outside their borders. Now, I heard a few Senators earlier today advocating for the elimination of the current standard that only allows States to tax entities with a physical presence in that State. Montana is one of those States that does not pay a sales tax. We do not want a sales tax. It has been on the ballot a number of times. It has been voted down by the people every time. But under the provisions that some in this Chamber are pushing, small businesses in Montana would be forced to do the bidding of the departments of revenue in other States by collecting and remitting their sales taxes. Montana's budget is currently operating at a surplus--without a sales tax. The idea that other States would balance their budgets on the backs of Montana's hard-working businesses is not only wrong, it is flat insulting. This is an unfunded mandate on Montana's small businesses, and it is a slippery slope of what businesses will do to take their collections out of State. Where is it going to go from here? Agricultural products grown and raised in Montana and marketed in other States? This is an aberration of States rights--rights which so many in this Chamber say they support. I would urge my colleagues to vote against any measures that would gut these States rights. With that, I thank the Senator from Minnesota and yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Minnesota. I thank her very much for her comments. I rise to join my colleagues who understand the need to strengthen our economy while taking responsible steps to reduce our deficit. Four short years ago we were coming out of the worst economic recession, depression, since the dirty thirties. Today, this country needs a budget that tells Americans we are serious about growing our economy and creating jobs. Strengthening our economy will increase economic opportunities for all Americans and allow small businesses to expand and hire more workers. But a stronger economy will also help us reduce our deficit without cutting the investments that lay the groundwork for a better future for our kids and grandkids: investments in education, in infrastructure, in our health, investments in our veterans. That is why the budget we are debating today is the responsible path forward for this Nation. It sets forth our priorities. It reduces our deficit without cutting the legs out from underneath our economy. It also tells Americans that we are not going to sacrifice those critical investments to strengthen our economy and enable our economy to grow. Montanans know what it is like to live within their means. We do not spend what we do not have. And our State government is required to have a balanced budget. That is why Montana is one of the few States that survived the recession without dropping into the red. I am going to get into that in another area shortly. We cannot tear the Federal Government apart to make up for the decisions that put us here in the first place. Ten years ago, we put two wars on the credit card at the same time we drastically cut taxes. Those choices quickly squandered the budget surplus we had in the 1990s. Today the Republican plan approved by the House, known as the Ryan budget, uses tricks and gimmicks and smoke and mirrors to balance the budget. It sacrifices the welfare of our seniors, our students, and our veterans to get us back to the good old days. It ends Medicare as we know it. It hands seniors a voucher that down the road will grow at half the rate of anticipated medical costs. Under their plan, for a procedure that a senior can afford today, tomorrow they will get a voucher for a part of what that procedure will cost, and they will be told: You make up the rest. And if you don't, too bad. The Ryan plan also freezes Pell grants for students at a time when education costs continue to grow too fast for middle-class families to afford. Pell grants, education--a major driver in our economy. It also makes it harder for low-income and unemployed veterans to get the health care they need. The Ryan plan is what I speak of. It cuts funding for women's health care and reduces coverage for preventative health services, such as cancer screenings--affecting 47 million women across this country. It does this while protecting tax loopholes for large corporations and failing to invest in roads and bridges. And the senior Senator from Minnesota knows all about bridges that collapse. She had one collapse in Minnesota. Those investments are necessary. If you balance the budget by taking the country apart, what is the point of balancing the budget? Now, there is no doubt we must reduce the deficit, and the Democratic plan responsibly cuts our deficit by putting us on a responsible long- term path that gets our fiscal house in order while investing in initiatives that grow our economy. It reduces the deficit by nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years. Now, that is not chump change, and that is on top of the work we have already done over the last few years to reduce the deficit by $1.6 trillion. It does this while protecting seniors, women's health, middle-class families, and students. Here is the kicker: Only the Democratic plan reforms the Tax Code and puts those savings toward deficit reduction. The Republican plan specifically forbids new revenue from tax reform to go to lower the deficit. For a party that claims balancing the budget is its holy grail, it is puzzling that Republicans want to use tax revenue to pay for more tax cuts. This is just one of many radical proposals and budget gimmicks they are proposing. If you are for a balanced budget, then you must be for balanced deficit reduction. Every bipartisan commission that has looked at the problem agrees: to responsibly balance the books, you need to save money through a comprehensive plan that cuts spending, reforms entitlements, and fixes our Tax Code--and uses that savings to pay down the debt. The time for commissions and working groups is past. We should have learned those lessons. We are here now to do the work to get our long- term deal to fix the budget. We will have to compromise, and that is the way it should be, because working together is what built this country. But only one plan is closer to where we need to be at the end of this debate. The Democratic plan cuts spending, keeps in place reforms to our health care system, and mandates the tax reform we need. Tax reform will not be easy, but there are a few things that should not be hard to agree on either. I think tax loopholes for big oil and gas companies and corporations that ship jobs overseas should be wiped off the books. We have two paths we can follow. One path drags this economy into a ditch by dismantling Medicare and cutting investments in infrastructure and our future. The other path takes a balanced approach to put this country on the road to long lasting economic growth and stability. We have been lurching from one crisis to another for far too long. It has hurt job growth because businesses are holding back. They do not know where the debate in Washington is headed. Offering them more certainty and strengthening this economy is something we need to do. We need to do it in a responsible way. We need to come together around a plan that strengthens our economy in the short term while taking real steps to reduce our deficit in the long term. Senator Murray's plan is a better choice. It meets the needs of the American people. It shows them we are willing to lead. That is what we were sent here to do. Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have?

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I wish to engage my colleague, Chairwoman Mikulski, in a colloquy. I thank the Senator for her important work in bringing this bill to the Senate. However, I would like clarification on Section 735 of Division A of the bill. This provision requires that the Secretary of Agriculture, if requested, issue temporary permits or temporary deregulation in the event a genetically engineered crop deregulation is set aside or vacated as unlawful. As you know, I oppose this provision and have deep concerns about its impact. I wish to confirm my understanding, even though this provision does not operate through a restriction of funds in this act, it is in effect only for the duration of the continuing resolution.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the continuing resolution before the Senate to fund the government and keep this country moving forward. This is a very difficult assignment that they have been handed, especially as we have a brandnew chair and ranking member. The bill increases support for firefighters battling blazes out West. That is very good. It maintains a critical safety net for women and children. That is very good. It returns full funding to several critical conservation programs and reaffirms our commitment to veterans, especially rural veterans--all very good. I thank Senator Jack Reed and Senator Tim Johnson in particular for their efforts in those areas. But while no bill is perfect, I am deeply--deeply--disappointed by two provisions that were slipped into this bill by the House of Representatives when this deal was being cooked up in December. This is Sunshine Week for the Federal Government. It is a time to highlight the need for greater transparency and openness so voters can hold their elected leaders accountable and for what happens here in Washington, DC, and to just know what is going on. I take transparency seriously. When I first ran for the Senate 7 years ago, I campaigned on the need to bring more accountability and honest leadership to Washington, DC. My first vote in this body was for a sweeping ethics bill that, among other provisions, improved disclosure rules and reformed the earmark process so that everybody would know which Member or Members of Congress requested an earmark, and it required Members to certify that they and their families had no financial interest in that earmark. Under regular order, folks had a chance to come down to the floor and try to remove earmarks they did not like. In fact, a few years ago I remember former Senator Jon Kyl and I had a pretty good debate on this floor about an important project for the city of Whitefish, MT. So we debated it, and we took a vote on it in the Senate. That is why I am so upset by two agriculture-related provisions that someone from the House of Representatives put into this bill--and that the Senate seems willing to accept. I do not know who authored this provision. Maybe someone in Washington knows, but no one is willing to put their name on it, and that is a shame. It is a shame that folks who get so bent out of shape about earmarks do not seem to be troubled by these provisions. Montana is home to thousands of working families who make a living off the land. Like my wife and me, they are family farmers and ranchers. The House of Representatives is prepared to toss those working families aside in favor of the Nation's large meatpacking corporations. The House inserted a provision in the bill that gives enormous marketing power to America's three largest meatpacking corporations while stiffing family farmers and ranchers. Family-run production agriculture faces tremendous market manipulation. Chicken farmers, hog farmers, and cattle ranchers all struggle to get a fair price from the meatpackers, and if they fight back, they risk angering corporate representatives and being shut out of the market. Thanks to this provision, the Agriculture Department will not be able to ensure a fair, open market that puts the brakes on the worst abuses by the meatpacking industry. What is worse is that the USDA took congressionally mandated steps to protect ranchers from market manipulation over the last few years. That is what we told them to do in the 2008 farm bill. This provision will actually overturn rules the USDA has already put into place. But apparently intense, behind-the-scenes lobbying won out in the House of Representatives, and now we are back to square one with the big meatpackers calling the shots. The second provision sent over from the House tells the USDA to ignore any judicial ruling regarding the planting of genetically modified crops. Its supporters are calling it the ``farmer assurance'' provision, but all it really ensures is a lack of corporate liability. The provision says that when a judge finds that the USDA approved a crop illegally, the Department must reapprove the crop and allow it to continue to be planted--regardless of what the judge says. Let's think about that. The U.S. Congress is telling the Agriculture Department: Even if a court tells you that you failed to follow the right process and tells you to start over, you must disregard the court's ruling and allow the crop to be planted anyway. Not only does this ignore the Constitution's idea of separation of powers, but it also lets genetically modified crops take hold across this country even when a judge finds it violates the law. Once again, agribusiness, multinational corporations are putting farmers as serfs. It is a dangerous precedent. It will paralyze the USDA by putting the Department in the middle of a battle between Congress and the courts. The ultimate loser will be our family farmers going about their business in feeding America in the right way. Sunshine Week should not be show and tell. Slipping corporate giveaways into a bill at the same time that we call for more open government is doubling down on the same policies that created the need for Sunshine Week. That is why we need to remove those corporate welfare provisions from the bill. Montanans elected me to go to the Senate to do away with these shady backroom deals, to get rid of handouts to big corporations, to make government work better. We still have many challenges in front of us. I commend the leaders of the Appropriations Committee for their commitment to working together to bring us a plan on which we can vote. These two provisions undermine our good work to support family farm agriculture. These provisions are giveaways, pure and simple, and will be a boon worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country. They deserve no place in this bill. We simply have to do a better job on both policy and process. I know Chairwoman Mikulski is committed to doing better. I strongly support her efforts. I wanted to thank her for that commitment. But we ought to start right here and now by striking those corporate giveaways. I yield the floor and I 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. TESTER. Madam President, as the cochair of the Senate Community Pharmacy Caucus, I rise to recognize the fifth annual NACDS RxIMPACT Day on Capitol Hill. This is a special day where we recognize pharmacy's contribution to the American healthcare system. This year's event, organized by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, takes place on March 13-14. Hundreds from the pharmacy community-- including practicing pharmacists, pharmacy school faculty and students, State pharmacy leaders and pharmacy company executives--will visit Capitol Hill. They will share their views with Congress about the importance of supporting legislation that protects access to community and neighborhood pharmacies and that utilizes pharmacists to improve the quality and reduce the costs of providing health care. Advocates from 37 States have travelled to Washington to talk about their contributions in over 50,000 community pharmacies nationwide. These important health care providers are here to urge Congress to recognize the value of pharmacists and protect access to these medication experts as a part of our health care delivery system. And just as these providers travelled to meet with us, over 100 Members of Congress have toured a local pharmacy over the past 5 years. Patients have always relied on their local pharmacist to meet their health care needs. The local pharmacist is a trusted, highly accessible health care provider deeply committed to providing accurate prescriptions, catching possible drug interactions and helping patients take medications as prescribed. As demand for health care services continues to grow, pharmacists have expanded their role in health care delivery, partnering with physicians, nurses and other health care providers to meet their patients' needs. Innovative services provided by pharmacists do even more to improve patient health care. Pharmacists are highly valued by those that rely on them most--those in rural and underserved areas, as well as older Americans, and those struggling to manage chronic diseases. Pharmacy services improve patients' quality of life and health care affordability. By helping patients take their medications effectively and providing preventive services, pharmacists help avoid more costly forms of care later. Pharmacists also help patients identify strategies to save money, such as understanding their pharmacy benefits, using generic drugs and obtaining 90-day supplies of prescription drugs from local pharmacies. The importance of medication adherence and the effectiveness of local pharmacists in delivering patient care is resonating with policymakers. Pharmacists are the Nation's most accessible healthcare providers. In many communities, especially in rural areas, the local pharmacist is a patient's most direct link to health care. Eightly-six percent of rural Americans reside within a 10-mile radius of a sole community pharmacy. Usually these pharmacists are substantially closer than their physicians. Pharmacists are one of the most trusted professionals. Pharmacy has a long history of receiving, filling, billing and dispensing prescriptions in tandem with patient counseling. Utilizing their specialized education, pharmacists also play a major role in medication therapy management, disease-state management, immunizations, health care screenings, and other health care services designed to improve patient health and reduce overall health care costs. As the face of neighborhood health care, pharmacies across the Nation offer these and other cost saving programs and services to patients. For more than a century, pharmacies and pharmacists have made a difference in the lives of Montanans and all Americans through these important patient care services, and it is critical we work to support their unique contributions. As we refine health care reform and seek new strategies to improve health and reduce costs, pharmacists will play a critical role. They help patients adhere to their medications and that improves health outcomes and reduces the risks of adverse events and unnecessary costly hospital readmissions and emergency room visits. Pharmacists as providers with a comprehensive understanding of a patient's medical needs, are uniquely qualified to work with patients to help manage all of their medications and play an essential role in helping them take their medications as prescribed. Unfortunately, only one half of Americans living with chronic diseases adhere to their drug regimens. This patient non-adherence costs the Nation's economy an estimated $290 billion each year, not to mention the avoidable loss of quality of life for patients and their loved ones. Congress recognized the important role of local pharmacists when it included a Medication Therapy Management, MTM, benefit in Medicare Part D. As we have seen the increasing value of this benefit in improving patient health outcomes, I support community pharmacy's efforts to strengthen the MTM benefit so it is available for seniors and others struggling with chronic conditions and other illnesses. Today, I celebrate the value of pharmacy and support efforts to protect access to neighborhood pharmacies and utilize pharmacies to improve the quality and reduce the costs of health care. In recognition of the fifth annual NACDS RxIMPACT Day on Capitol Hill, I would like to congratulate pharmacy leaders, pharmacists, students, and executives and the pharmacy community represented by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores for their contributions to the good health of the American people.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Arthur A. Klein, a veteran of World War II and resident of Billings, MT. It is my honor to share the story of Art's service in World War II, because no story of bravery--and especially not one from our ``greatest generation''--should ever be forgotten. Art was born October 17, 1921, in Killam, Canada, to a large and hard-working prairie family. Hard times forced Art to move to Spokane, WA, to find work, but he soon enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1939 for a chance to proudly serve the Nation he would eventually adopt as his own. In August 1941, the Marine Corps assigned Art to the First Marine Defense Battalion on Wake Island: a remote atoll 2,300 miles west of Hawaii where the U.S. Navy was building a military base. Four hundred and forty-nine U.S. marines, 68 U.S. Navy personnel, 6 Army Air Corps soldiers, and 1,221 civilian workers occupied the three islands comprising Wake Atoll. Because of the International Date Line, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was December 8, 1941, at Wake Island. Wake Islands naval commander received radio reports of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and ordered the island to full alert. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor the Japanese planes attacked Wake Island. While defending the island, Mr. Klein was shot in the leg. U.S. forces on Wake Island fought for many days without reinforcements or support, but they couldnt hold against overwhelming Japanese forces. To save civilians and military forces, the islands U.S. naval commander was forced to surrender the garrison. On January 12, 1942, Mr. Klein was placed aboard the Japanese ship Nitta Maru and crowded into the ships cargo hold. In the ships cargo hold, Mr. Klein endured 7 days before docking in Japan. For the next 4 years, Mr. Klein worked in Japanese coal mines and crude steel mills. Once, a guard clubbed Mr. Klein into unconsciousness for simply picking a small onion to eat. Losing weight and in declining health, Mr. Klein never gave up hope. In September 1945, when Allied forces victoriously liberated Mr. Klein and other prisoners in Japan, Mr. Klein weighed 85 pounds. Returning in triumph to America and freedom, Mr. Klein, now a sergeant in the Marine Corps, spent weeks in a military hospital to recover from his captivity. Art eventually left the Marine Corps, became an American citizen, and began a successful business career. Art settled in Billings, MT, and has been active in veterans organizations where he continues being a source of inspiration, courage, and patriotism for us all. A fellow veteran recently asked Art what kept him going during his WWII captivity. In response, Mr. Klein, now 91 years of age, struggled to raise a now frail right arm as high as he could, and with a clenched fist and inspiring smile, said, ``The USA.'' On behalf of a grateful nation, I commend Mr. Klein and his service to America.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending measure. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, this amendment, No. 3350, is to provide additional funds for wildland fire management. The summer of 2012 was a bad fire year, the third worst on record--9.2 million acres were burned. The drought has continued to persist. Projections for 2013 as a fire season will be even worse. The Forest Service budget--when there are bad fire years, they have to rob from other accounts. That was the case this year, with a shortfall of $653 million. This amendment closes that gap and gives the Forest Service the resources for the upcoming fire season, which is due to be a bad one. The amendment also requires the GAO to recommend alternative new models to better reflect the costs associated with wild land fires because they have been underfunded so much in the past. This will establish a better model and reduce the need for supplemental funding in this account in the future. Here is the scoop, folks: The damage done by fires, particularly in the West, was extensive and is an emergency. The Forest Service can continue to rob money from other accounts to fight these fires which ends up in poor forest management and even bigger fires. I encourage everyone's concurrence in this amendment.