Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would ask the Senate set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1492.

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

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be set aside, and I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1503.

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

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak on this amendment for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment with Senator Cochran and ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. TESTER. This is a straightforward amendment. It simply requires candidates for the Senate, both challengers and incumbents, file their quarterly campaign finance reports electronically. Anyone seeking the Presidency or a spot in the U.S. House of Representatives is required to submit campaign finance records electronically right now, but Senators or would-be Senators are not. It makes no sense. Right now, Senate candidates drop off a hard copy of their filing report with the Secretary of the Senate. Someone from the FEC comes over and then takes the reports over to the FEC to make copies, and then, finally, the copies are put online. These documents often run hundreds of pages in length. The FEC estimates it wastes about $250,000 of taxpayer money each year just to make those copies and put them online. Now, that might not sound like a lot of money in Washington, DC, but the idea of spending $1/4 million on an outdated process represents what is wrong with Washington, DC. Americans deserve to know how much money candidates raise and from whom, and they deserve to be able to access that information in real time. It is not just the cost of the current process that folks should be angry about. The process of making copies and posting the documents online takes weeks. That is not just a waste of time, it is bad for the democratic process. Campaign finance data filed right before a general election is not available to the public until the following February, long after the election has already taken place. Since the Citizens United ruling, folks aren't able to tell who is funding third-party advertisements. It is hard enough to know who is spending the money on third-party advertisements. The least we can do is to make sure that folks have better access to the information about who is giving to the candidates. My bill from the last Congress had strong bipartisan support--14 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 5 of the cosponsors are members of the Homeland Security Committee. I especially appreciate, and I wish to thank, the Republican manager of the STOCK Act, Senator Collins, for being a supporter of that original bill. We have an opportunity to do something that cuts government spending and adds more transparency and accountability to the elections process. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Val Molaison, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor today.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today the Senate will be given the opportunity to ban insider trading by Members of Congress and their staff. Insider trading is illegal for everyone in America, and there is no doubt about that. But when it comes to the information that folks in Congress learn before the general public learns it, there are no clear- cut rules, and that is unacceptable. Folks in Congress clearly have advanced knowledge of which bills and issues Congress will consider. They know how those bills will affect basic goods and services, and often the legislation we pass impacts how well a company does on the stock market. Good men and women work for Congress, and I have the deepest respect for my colleagues. I would say all come to the Senate with good intentions and carry out their daily responsibilities without thinking about using information they learn for personal financial gain. That is why banning insider trading should be an easy lift. The fact that Members of Congress and their staffs are allowed to buy and sell stocks based on privileged information is incredible to me. Congress has historically low approval ratings from the American people. They believe many in Congress do not represent them and have forgotten what it means to be a normal American. Most folks would assume Congressmen and Senators already cannot trade stocks based on information they get in their jobs, but it turns out this may not be true. That is just one more example of why the American people have lost faith in this institution. As elected officials, it is our duty to regain the trust of the American people. We have an obligation to be as transparent and as accountable as possible. That is why I was the first Member of Congress to post my public schedule online for everybody to see. My constituents can look at my schedule every day to see with whom I meet and which hearings I attend. Now we have the opportunity to help regain trust in this body by bringing our own rules in line with the rest of America. By adding transparency and accountability, the American people will know we are working on their behalf without considering personal financial gains. This bill contains a provision Senator Begich and I sponsored to ensure that the annual financial disclosure forms filed by Members of Congress are available electronically. As with most transparency, full transparency means the public has the right and the ability to see our records. In the 21st century, there is no reason we can't do it right away. Letting those disclosures sit in a filing cabinet somewhere in the Capitol Complex is not transparency; putting the files online in a searchable format is. At a time of hyperpartisanship, this is an opportunity for both sides to work together on a bill we sorely need. There is not a Democratic or Republican angle to this. Every elected official should want to make sure the rules we are held to are consistent and transparent and in line with the rest of the Nation. In fact, this is as nonpartisan a bill as can be, with ideas from Senator Gillibrand and Senator Scott Brown but carried by Senator Lieberman. This bill covers each section of the political spectrum. It is a straightforward bill that is long overdue. The STOCK Act will be a step toward ensuring that when people run for Congress or come to work for Congress, they are doing so because they want to work on behalf of the American people and not for their own personal benefit. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes on this act so we can restore faith in Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the life of a great American, a fellow Montanan, and a true patriot who served his country proudly in World War II, Army SGT Lee Osterholm, a native of Butte, MT. Born on April 24, 1919, Lee served in the Border Patrol in Texas prior to World War II. When our country was thrust into war, Lee answered the call of duty, enlisting in the U.S. Army on March 8, 1943, and was soon on the battlefields of Central Europe fighting for our very freedom. Between 1943 and 1945 Lee's unwavering commitment to duty and courage under fire was evident as he led men into combat throughout the European theater and performed superbly in both the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Air Corps. Sadly he never received the recognition he deserved once the war ended and he was discharged on February 9, 1946. Over 65 years later, his country is finally recognizing Lee's accomplishments by awarding him the Bronze Star posthumously. I ask unanimous consent that the citation to accompany this award be printed in the Record.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today to talk about jobs and politics. There are a lot of folks in Washington who pay lipservice to jobs and a lot of people that are playing politics. But it sure doesn't seem that many folks are interested in doing the hard job of creating jobs. Folks all over Montana have been asking for good-paying, liveable- wage jobs, the kind of jobs that can't be outsourced, jobs that put folks to work in our forests, jobs that build the energy infrastructure this country needs. Right now there are two proposals that will do just that. First, I would like to talk about my Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. This bill will stabilize the wood products industry in Montana by ensuring a dependable timber supply that will give certainty to loggers in the woods and workers in the mills. This bill will allow for the restoration of 100,000 acres of national forest lands in Montana, reducing the chances of out-of-control forest fires that could devastate our communities, our watersheds, and our way of life. Recent data released by the Forest Service shows that wildfires that burn where the trees were thinned were less expensive to fight, they were easier to control, and did less structural damage to neighboring buildings. This bill also puts people to work by rolling up roads, improving our water quality, and protecting big game habitat. It protects nearly 1 million acres for our children and grandchildren in wilderness and recreation areas. This is a bipartisan solution, supported by industry and conservationists. It is the product of people who were on polar opposites of the issue who came together to find solutions for how we can manage our forests better. We could take a lesson from their example. They brought those solutions to me to be put into law. This is a bill that will move the country in the right direction with a responsible balanced solution, and it will create jobs. But rather than getting this bill passed, it has become a political football in the appropriations process. Some House Republicans seem to be more concerned with their own job rather than creating Montana jobs by passing my Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. That isn't fair to Montanans who are anxious to get back to work, to reclaim a life that has been disappearing in a rapid rate. We lost over 1,700 jobs in the timber industry in 2009, more last year, and still more this year. I would ask folks who are negotiating this final deal right now to think about the folks who are counting on us to set politics aside and do what is right for our country and for Montana. This same logic applies to the Keystone XL Pipeline. Right now, the President has the power to create jobs by approving this pipeline. He could make the decision to approve this pipeline in the very near future. Now, let me be clear. He should do it right. Doing it right means approving this pipeline while respecting private property rights. I support the pipeline. But I will never support any corporation--much less a foreign corporation--given the right to take away property from Montanans or any other American without a fair deal that is negotiated in good faith. Doing it right also means ensuring that the highest possible safety standards are followed throughout Montana and rural America. I do not believe we should have to wait until January of 2013 for a decision that can create American jobs right now. In Montana, we need the jobs. We need the ability to provide incentives to boost production in places where it makes the most sense, such as the Bakken formation in eastern Montana. Now, many folks don't know that the Keystone Pipeline will actually include an onramp in Baker, MT. That onramp will tap into the booming Bakken formation, and it will ensure that we are getting the most out of American energy resources. That matters to our economy and it matters to our energy and national security. The Keystone XL pipeline will transport North American oil and will help move this country away from spending billions of dollars per day in Middle Eastern countries that do not like us very much. At the same time, I am concerned about the way folks on both sides of this issue are handling it right now. We do not need to entangle this issue with a payroll tax in the House bill that would add more than $25 billion to our debt and that would cut Medicare benefits. It is time to quit playing politics and start doing what is right, whether it is the Forest Jobs Act or the Keystone pipeline. It is time to move forward, working together to create jobs in this country. Instead, politicians on both sides are using these important items as political footballs and that is too bad. We should be acting responsibly to create jobs with this pipeline and to put folks back to work in the woods with my bill. Instead, we are watching political maneuvering designed to score points rather than create jobs. We all know this is how Washington acts. The people who lose are the hard- working Americans and Montanans who want to get back to work. They want to build and maintain the infrastructure that powers and protects America. I am proud to again offer my support for the Keystone XL pipeline and the jobs it will create. We need a quicker decision based on the merits of the project. After setting aside their differences and working together to protect our forests, Montanans also deserve the passage of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. Instead of irresponsible partisan fights, it is time that Congress finally takes a page from those who constructed the forest jobs bill. They set aside nearly 30 years of partisan bickering to find solutions where everyone gives a little and gains a lot. It is the right way to do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, first, I wish to start by thanking Chairman Levin and Senator McCain for their continued dialog on a matter of overseas basing priorities. I very much appreciate their efforts to work to get at least the first steps in place for a thorough review of our overseas basing needs and finally getting some answers on the costs of these bases. I also wish to especially thank my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison, for her continued leadership on this issue and for joining me on amendment 1145, a bipartisan effort to establish an overseas basing commission. I realize there are concerns that this is not the right time to establish such a commission. However, I think it is the perfect time. So let me reiterate one point I mentioned yesterday. The commission would be charged with saving taxpayers money by identifying potential savings from reevaluating and potentially realigning our overseas military base structure and investments. It is time we take some commonsense steps to identify and cut overseas military facilities and construction projects that have minimal negative impacts on our national security and military readiness. There is no better time than the present to begin this work. In a spirit of compromise and understanding that establishing a commission is not currently acceptable to some, I have worked with my colleagues to include an independent assessment of our overseas basing in this legislation. I ask unanimous consent to speak now as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. TESTER. What I would like to speak on now is regarding the payroll tax votes that we are going to be taking later today or possibly even this evening. I wish to tell you exactly why I am going to vote against both of these proposals. I believe they are gimmicks, designed more for political posturing than what Congress ought to be doing right now; that is, working together to create jobs on a long- term basis; to create long-term certainty for businesses throughout this country, Montana included, while we work to cut our deficit. The Democrat's proposal is the same included in the President's American Jobs Act, which I voted against several weeks ago. My reasons for voting against that proposal have not changed. It would temporarily extend the Social Security payroll tax holiday through 2012 and pay for it by raising taxes on the wealthy. Although I support making sure millionaires and corporations pay their fair share in taxes, I do not believe this particular proposal will create jobs or give our economy the boost it needs right now. A small 1-year temporary tax cut will not give Main Street businesses the long-term certainty they need to grow and hire. The proposal by the Senate Republicans also temporarily extends the payroll tax holiday but only by cutting certain Medicare benefits and cutting jobs and extending a current pay freeze for our folks who serve in public service. Neither of these proposals is right for Montana and neither will earn my vote. I want to take you back to a few weeks ago, in November, when Congress unanimously passed my veterans jobs bill, called the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. The President has already signed it into law. I believe Congress has a responsibility to spend more time passing legislation such as that--real solutions that create real jobs, and not political theater. I know we can do it. It was appropriate for us to work together for the veterans. It is also appropriate for us to work together to create jobs for all Americans. Mr. President, 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 thank Chairman Levin for his comments. As we look for opportunities to save money, as we look for opportunities to focus in on the war on terror, I think our time has come to take a hard look at our overseas basing and do what, quite frankly, will enhance our opportunities to fight the war on terror while saving the taxpayers dollars over the short term and the long haul. I thank Chairman Levin for his comments. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER. Thank you, Mr. President. It is good to see the Senator in the chair. I rise to speak on amendment No. 1145. I cannot call up this amendment at this point in time, but hopefully at some time during this debate we can deal with this issue of foreign base closures, which is what amendment No. 1145 does. I have offered--along with my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison--to establish an overseas basing commission. We are joined on this amendment by Senators Conrad, Wyden, and Sanders. This commission would be charged with saving taxpayer money by identifying and reevaluating our overseas military base structure and investments. It is not a new discussion. This has been done before. In Washington, colleagues from both sides of the aisle have long advocated for issues similar to this one. In Montana, Senator Mike Mansfield--a personal hero of mine and one of the truest statesmen of this body--advocated fiercely throughout his public service for a more commonsense approach to our overseas military commitment. Senator Mansfield's approach balanced our national security interests and decisions with decisions and investments that made sense fiscally. The time could not be more appropriate to renew this call. Given our budget outlook, we have a responsibility to exhaustively look for savings across our government. We need to be smart and we need to work together. It makes a lot of sense to me that cutting overseas military construction projects that have minimal negative impacts on our national security and military readiness is the right idea. We know there is a significant higher cost associated with maintaining facilities and forces overseas, particularly in Europe, than here in the United States. We also know we need a more complete picture of the cost, the benefits, and the savings associated with overseas basing as we make tough budgetary decisions. Given our military's advanced capabilities, it is time for some responsible decisions about how to best secure our country while saving American taxpayers every penny we possibly can. As Montana families examine their bottom line and as the country works to cut spending, it is past time to give our outdated military bases and installations a closer look. An overseas basing commission would independently address these issues firsthand and ensure that military construction spending and operational maintenance spending match our capabilities and our national security strategy. As we move forward, I hope we will do so in the spirit of Senator Mansfield by working together and by making commonsense decisions that keep us both safe and spend our taxpayer dollars more wisely. As I said when I opened these remarks, I think this is a no-brainer. We need to take a step back, look at the money we are spending on overseas bases, make sure we are getting the best bang for the buck and make sure it meets our national security needs. With a lot of these post-World War II installations, they can be shut down, we can save some money, and it is a win-win situation for everybody. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Yes, I do. I thank Senator Whitehouse. We have talked about the unemployment rate and job opportunities for people who get higher education. I was talking to a welding shop in Fort Benton, MT. Fort Benton is in the north central part of the State. The oil play in the east has been having some impacts even in that area of the State. This welding shop that is in Fort Benton--I talked to the fellow, and he had some issues he wanted to talk to me about. I said: What is one of the biggest things you have to deal with right now? He said: Right now, I could hire a half a dozen welders. I could hire them tomorrow. The work is out there for them to do. When we talk about getting this economy going again and getting things moving, it is so critically important we not only talk about the 4-year colleges that develop our entrepreneurs and businesspeople but we also talk about the community colleges, the technical colleges, the tribal colleges that do a great job developing a well-trained workforce. With that, I will kick it over to Senator Landrieu.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. We appreciate his leadership on the issue of Pell grants. I very much appreciate the opportunity to address Pell grants and what they mean to not only our young people and to the folks who are being retrained to find different lines of work with the economic slowdown but also to our economy in general overall. If we are going to go to an institution of higher learning at this point in time, it takes money. If Pell grants are reduced or potentially even taken away, as some want, it takes away that opportunity. It takes away that opportunity for upward mobility within our society, within the economy. Without education, if a person is born poor, that person is liable to stay poor. Without education, if a person wants to improve their quality of life, it becomes much more difficult. When I meet with students, both traditional and nontraditional, around the State of Montana, the first question they ask me or one of the first questions is, What is the Federal Government doing to make college affordable? Because if one is unfortunate enough to be born without economic means, these Pell grants are critically important to be able to allow people--students, young people, folks who need to be retrained--to go to college and get that training, thereby adding to our economy and enabling them to get a better job and potentially become business owners and down the line. Why is this important? It is because Pell grants have been under attack in the House. H.R. 1 would cut $5.7 billion from Pell grants and 1.7 million students would have been denied access to education because of that cut. Some people in the House even call Pell grants 21st century welfare. It couldn't be further from the truth. Then, after H.R. 1 was put down in the Senate in a bipartisan way, the House passed the Labor-HHS bill which cut $8 billion from Pell grants, thereby eliminating Pell grants for folks who are going to school less than half time. That eliminates a good portion of the nontraditional students because a lot of these folks are trying to make a living, trying to support a family, and trying to improve themselves in the economic strata of this world. Some of them have been laid off. There is an individual, for example, in western Montana who had a tile business, with 27 years' experience in the tile and stone business. He had a family, and because of the economic downturn and because of, quite frankly, physical limitations in a business that is very difficult, he had to find a different line of work. Work had dried up and, quite frankly, the back was getting weak. So he was able to get a Pell grant, go back to school on a part-time basis, and study for a job where there was a job once he got out in the culinary arts-- something he had wanted to do and something that would allow him to support his family. Without those Pell grants, he would have possibly been on workers' comp or potentially making far less money. So when the Pell grants come forward in the House and they do things such as cut Pell grants, either their amount or eliminate the numbers available to our students across this country, traditional and otherwise, we are basically doing bad things to the economy, cutting the economy down because, quite honestly, the affordability issue is critically important as we move forward and people go to get retrained and move themselves up in the economic strata. The other issue, finally, is the importance to Indian Country. With the tribal colleges, the Pell grants are used to a great extent there. Why is this important? In Montana, in Indian Country, the unemployment rate is very high--70 percent and higher--on many of the reservations around Montana. Quite honestly, if we are going to dig into the unemployment rate across this country, whether it is Indian reservations or wherever, education is a key component to making that happen. Pell grants are a key component to giving access to our students, both traditional and nontraditional. As we move forward, we need to understand that for men and women alike, young people and middle-aged, who need the training to be able to get good jobs, Pell grants are a critical component of that. With that, I kick it back to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I honor Marvin Brewster, a veteran of the Vietnam war. And a familiar volunteer in the community of Great Falls, MT. For years, Marv has been very active in Toys for Tots, and the Marine Corps League, and the Great Falls Farmers Market. Marv Brewster is also an artist. He sculpted the 13-foot angel that graces the Montana Veterans' Memorial. Anyone who has visited that memorial has no doubt been uplifted by the power and comfort of Marv's statue. Through all of his work in this community, Marv never asked for recognition. He just did as all Marines do--the very best he could on behalf of his fellow citizens. Forty-six years ago, Marv joined the Navy. He served with M Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines as a combat corpsman in Vietnam. I would like to read what COL C.H. Bodley, the commander of the 3rd Battalion, said to Marv in 1966. And this is a direct quote: You have performed your duties as Platoon Corpsman in an outstanding manner . . . Your potential was more fully exploited as you participated in eight major operations and numerous small unit activities. On Operation Mallard' the company sustained 13 casualties from Viet Cong small arms and mortar fire. Without hesitation, you moved through the area administering aid and comforting those in need of your assistance . . . Your performance on Operation Mallard' is indicative of the consistently fine work you have been doing. Your eagerness to serve, unswerving loyalty and professional ability have earned you the respect and confidence of all who have been associated with you. It is indeed a pleasure to have men of your caliber in my command and I highly commend you for a job well done. On April 21, 1966, Marv was wounded in combat during ``Operation Hot Springs.'' For his sacrifice, he received a Purple Heart. Marv got the medal. But his Purple Heart was never recorded in his official records. The Navy said it was the Marines' job. The Marines said it was the Navy's job. Decades later, Marv Brewster reached out to my office to fix his record once and for all so he could access the health benefits he earned as he faces another tough challenge: cancer, related to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. Yesterday, it was my honor to present Marv with the Purple Heart Award Certificate he should have received nearly 50 years ago, and with it a corrected ``DD 215'' discharge form. History shows us that Marv is an honored recipient of the Purple Heart, and all the benefits that come with it. In researching Marv's records, we learned that Marv never received several other decorations he earned years ago. Yesterday, I also had the honor of presenting to Marv, the Navy Good Conduct Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal. It was also my honor to present the Vietnam Service Medal with three Bronze Stars, and the Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon. Yesterday I also presented to Marv the Combat Action Ribbon and the Vietnam Campaign Medal with 1960 Device. These decorations are small tokens, but they are powerful symbols of true heroism--sacrifice and dedication to service. These medals are presented on behalf of a grateful nation that wishes you and your family, Marv, the very best in the future.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, the economy has hit us all hard. Montanans who have done everything right are losing their jobs, and some are even losing their homes. To get the economy back on track we need to employ some common sense. We need to put politics aside, and we need to work together on behalf of the struggling families across this country. In particular, we need to do the right thing on behalf of our men and women who have served our Nation in uniform. The unemployment rate for younger veterans who have served since September 11, 2001, continues to remain well above average. It is unacceptably high and is getting worse. It is a national disgrace. Our service men and women deserve better. These men and women left the comforts of home and put their lives on hold to fight for us in some of the harshest conditions imaginable. Far too many have paid the ultimate sacrifice, while thousands continue to struggle with the wounds of war--those seen and those unseen. They face daily challenges many of us can never fully comprehend, and they have endured sacrifices we can never fully repay. Many of them served multiple tours. Even the Montana National Guard's largest unit was sent to Iraq twice in the last 8 years. That is a long time--especially for a Reserve component--to be away from home. But they carried out their assignments as the best-trained, most professional military in the world. And for that we are proud and we are grateful. When I visited Iraq and Afghanistan earlier this year, I was protected by some of the most well-trained, professional, and downright inspirational men and women our country has ever produced. I recall in one instance standing at a command operating base looking out over a valley in Afghanistan where, months earlier, the Taliban had run roughshod. I thought about how difficult the conditions were for the young men and women who were there wearing the uniform of our country, standing shoulder to shoulder with members of the Afghan Army. In the hours we were there, I did not hear one complaint, only commitment and pride in their work from our troops. I will never forget that. If we fail to do right by them, what does that say about us? Simply put, we have a responsibility to provide for all veterans and their families. It is something I have never taken lightly, and it is something that continues to motivate me every single day. It means providing them with the best services and care, and it means giving them every opportunity to succeed and empowering them with the tools they need to find good-paying jobs. The legislation before us today does exactly that. It would provide important tax credits to encourage more employers to hire veterans who are out of work. It would provide additional education and job training for veterans to gain additional skills to be more successful in an increasingly competitive job market. It would take important steps to help ease the transition between military service and the civilian workforce. Let me give an example of how this bill would directly affect one of my constituents. A chap by the name of Nathan Wiens grew up in Glasgow, MT, a small town in the northeastern corner of the State. He attended Montana State University on an ROTC scholarship, earned a degree in civil engineering, and was deployed to Iraq as a captain in the Army. During his years in the Army, Nathan used his engineering degree. But when he came home, his military experience did not count toward his professional engineering certification. Now Nathan has to spend a couple of years building up the civilian equivalent of the military experience he already has just to be able to qualify to become a certified professional engineer. This bill will help fix it so that military experience counts. This bill says if someone spends 6 years in the Army driving a truck, they ought to be able to get their commercial driver's license a whole lot faster than someone who does not have that experience. It would require the Department of Labor, in conjunction with the VA and the Department of Defense, to take a hard look at what military skills and training should be translatable to the civilian sector. It would make it easier to get these licenses and certifications that our veterans need. This bill will give employers valuable information about the skill sets our veterans have gained while they have served in the military. These are the kinds of commonsense ideas we should be taking a look at. It is the responsible thing to do for America's veterans. It would not surprise anyone this proposal has ideas from both Democrats and Republicans because this is an issue that shouldn't be partisan. Every Member of the Senate should be committed to helping veterans find jobs. Montana has more veterans per capita than any other State in the Union, except Alaska. We have 103,000 veterans in Montana. As I travel across the State and visit with them and their families, the topic of veterans employment remains at the forefront of their minds. It is important to them. It is important to their friends and loved ones. It is important to our communities. It should be important to each and every one of us. We deal with a lot of contentious issues here, but this should not be one of them. Let's work together to do the right thing and get this bill passed because it is the least we can do for those to whom we owe so much. With that, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the bill.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, we are now going to take up amendment No. 927, which is the VOW To Hire Heroes Act. This is a veterans employment act, broad based, bipartisan. It has Republican ideas and it has Democratic ideas in it. It is paid for. It is the right thing to do because we all know that veterans right now returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have a much higher unemployment rate than the rest of our population. Because of that high unemployment rate it is necessary we get this amendment agreed to and attached to this bill. I ask concurrence with amendment No. 927.