Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to start my remarks by saying I have tremendous respect for anybody who will go through the process of confirmation. It is a tough, rigorous process, but it is a process that is very important to this country. The Senate needs to confirm the nominees, and we need to do our work as Senators to make sure the people in the positions in the Cabinet are well-suited to those positions.

In that regard, I am going to rise today in opposition to the nomination of Mike Pompeo to lead the Central Intelligence Agency.

As our Nation's top intelligence agency, the CIA plays a critical role in keeping our country safe from those who want to do us harm, but Mr. Pompeo envisions American intelligence-gathering that does much more than keep us safe from our adversaries. He wants to collect the private information of law-abiding citizens. Mr. Pompeo has advocated for reestablishing bulk metadata collection, combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a searchable, comprehensive database.

That might sound fine, but it isn't. What this means is that a phone call with your friend or coworker could be a conversation tracked by the U.S. Government. That is not right. What this means is that a kid from Lewistown, MT, who is attending college in Bozeman and feels homesick and wants to call home on a Sunday afternoon, that could be tracked. Look, he is not a threat to our country. A grandmother calling her grandkids on their birthday to wish them happy birthday, that could be a tracked. It is not a threat to our country.

This type of bulk data collection Mr. Pompeo advocates for fails to protect our right to privacy and potentially treats innocent Americans like hostile actors. The threats we face in this world are real, but we cannot afford to revive and expand some of the worst elements of the PATRIOT Act. Every American has a fundamental right to privacy, and Mr. Pompeo has indicated he is willing to sacrifice that right. The President deserves to have the guy in office whom he wants, but we can't allow a person to be in office that is going to take away our privacy, take away our civil liberties.

It has been pointed out on this floor before all the bad people out there--in North Korea, in China, in Iran, in Syria, in Russia. Let me be clear. We must strengthen our national security, but we do not have to sacrifice our civil liberties in that process.

We can have a safe nation that respects our fundamental freedoms. Both are possible. Because of these reasons--of bulk metadata collection and infringement on our civil liberties in this country--I cannot support Mr. Pompeo. I urge my colleagues to look at what he is requesting and oppose his nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the speech that I gave to the Montana House of Representatives on January 16, 2017, printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to start off my remarks by thanking Senator Sasse for us being able to work on this bill together. This is a good bill. He is exactly right--that this bill came out of the Presiding Officer's committee last year, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We met in the hallway and said: Let's fix this problem, because it is a problem. We have a bill on the floor today that does exactly that. It is a good-government bill. As the Senator from Nebraska has already pointed out, it is a truly bipartisan bill.

The GAO Access and Oversight Act makes the government more transparent and more accountable to our taxpayers.

Congress passed legislation in 1996 that created the National Directory of New Hires at the Department of Health and Human Services. Since that time, Congress has amended the law to permit other Federal agencies to access the directory. Today, Departments such as the Department of Education and the Department of the Treasury

can access the directory for information on the collection of defaulted student loans or the collection of delinquent Federal loans, but the GAO--the Government Accountability Office--has not been allowed access to this directory.

Now, by clarifying that the GAO has the authority to access the National Directory of New Hires, we can ensure that the taxpayers' watchdog is more easily able to do its job and root out Federal overpayments as well as waste, fraud, and abuse.

Federal agencies reported nearly $125 billion in improper payments in fiscal year 2014 alone--that is $125 billion with a ``b.'' By allowing the GAO access to this directory, Congress will provide the office with a critical tool that can help save taxpayers billions of dollars in unnecessary waste.

Once again, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for reaching across the aisle and working in a bipartisan fashion. This bill has strong support from Senators on both sides of the aisle, and--guess what--it passed unanimously in the House of Representatives.

I agree with folks across the country who have made themselves heard. They want a more transparent government, a more accountable government, and a more efficient government, and that is exactly what this bill does. That is why I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this good-government bill today.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am not going to get into a lot of the things that Senator Durbin got into about increasing the lifespan of Medicare or issues that revolve around folks who get charged more just because they are a woman. But I do want to approach this health care debate from a standpoint of how it is going to impact rural America because it is going to impact rural America in a huge way.

Before I start my prepared remarks, I just want to say something. For the last 6 years, I have listened to folks stand on this floor and talk about repealing health care, repealing health care, repealing health care. Now the folks on the other side of the aisle can do it if they want. But for the last 6 years, I have never seen a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, and I

still haven't seen a plan. I am going to tell you that if we repeal this bill without a plan to replace it, we will have big, big problems in this country. And if we repeal this bill without a plan that increases accessibility and affordability across this Nation in urban and rural and frontier areas, we will have big, big problems.

I have been visiting for the last--well, it has been over a year but, more specifically, since the election, with folks across rural America on the impacts of repealing this health care bill. These are folks who work to feed our country, farmers and ranchers. These are folks who work with their hands to manufacture products that have that ``Made in the USA'' stamp on it. These are folks who teach our children, who help keep our families safe, who operate retail businesses on Main Street. These folks, in my opinion, are the backbone of this country.

I am proud to be a product of that rural America, hailing from a town with a population today of about 600 people, so I am not here talking about what is going on in Chicago or L.A. or New York or any of the other big cities. I am going to talk to you about communities where you know your neighbor; communities where you are driving down the street, and you see that pickup, and you know who is in that pickup; folks who, when you go down to the local grocery store, you know their first name. These are towns where often the hospital is the largest employer and it is the only source of health care, that foundation that keeps families healthy.

I am here to talk to you about how this Affordable Care Act has been so important to those families in rural areas in States like mine. By the way, all of Montana is rural.

Today, more Montanans have health insurance than ever before. That is undeniable. Folks are no longer denied coverage by insurance companies because they have preexisting conditions like diabetes nor are they forced to pay higher premiums because they have common ailments like high blood pressure. Children are able to stay on their parents' insurance policies for a time until they finish their college career or launch lives of their own. Folks who have life-threatening diseases like cancer can now finish the treatments without hitting an arbitrary cap and being kicked off their insurance plan. Now they are required to be able to stay on it. And seniors can get out of the prescription drug doughnut hole faster, which was costing them millions of dollars each and every year. In fact, since the ACA was signed into law, Montana seniors alone have saved $56 million in prescription drug costs and there is enough money in the bank, as I said in my opening, to keep Medicare above water through 2028.

These reforms have made incredible impacts on people in rural America. But don't just take my word for it; listen to everyday Montanans. I have been traveling across that State, hearing their stories, hearing their struggles, hearing their successes.

Just this weekend, a man stood up at a public forum I was hosting in Missoula and talked about how the ACA saved his life. He told me that he had a heart attack the previous week. He was home and started having some chest pains. He picked up the phone, called his doctor--a doctor who he had, thanks to the insurance he received under the ACA.

Luckily, he survived his heart attack, was able to get the treatment he needed, and was able to come to my roundtable that I had in Missoula. He told me: I know myself, if I did not have insurance, and I could not afford to get it without the ACA, I would not have called the doctor, and I would have died. As pointedly as that, he would have died.

I have traveled around Montana. I have found that this story is not unique. I can take you to a coffee shop in Havre--population 8 to 10,000--where seniors have told me that they no longer have to choose between prescription drugs and heating their homes.

I can take you to the grocery store in Great Falls, where a man came up to me and said: ``I finally have peace of mind that I won't lose my home if I get sick.''

Or I can introduce you to my best friend growing up in Big Sandy, who now lives in Seattle, who no longer can be denied coverage due to the fact that he has diabetes, a preexisting condition.

These are real success stories and real-life impacts across Montana and across this country. But rather than build on the successes of the ACA and fix the problems with the ACA, there are folks in this body who want a full-scale repeal, ignoring any of the progress that we have made.

They want to go back to the old health care system. And here is what that would look like in Montana: 152,000 Montanans with preexisting conditions will be at risk of losing their health care plans; 61,000 Montanans enrolled in Medicaid--just in the last year because that is when the Medicaid expansion actually went into effect--will lose their health care coverage. Montana seniors will lose help paying for their prescription drugs. Insurers will be allowed to subject every Montanan to lifetime and annual caps on their coverage. And women will lose important protections that prevent them from being charged more for coverage than men.

It doesn't stop there, folks. Their plan to repeal health care coverage without presenting a replacement doesn't just impact families. It will wreak damage on our rural hospitals and clinics too.

I will tell you that if we lose these hospitals and clinics--and we all know how rural America is drying up--it is another nail in the coffin of rural America. Folks will not be able to live there if they are over the age of 50 because they will have no access to health care.

The Affordable Care Act has provided rural hospitals and clinics a level of certainty that, quite frankly, they have never had before. Every day in rural communities, folks rely on their local hospitals and clinics for everything from basic checkups to emergency treatments. I know. And as folks age, they have the peace of mind to know that they can visit their hometown provider without being forced to travel long distances.

But if folks in Congress take us back to the old health care system, they put these local hospitals and clinics at extreme risk.

Take Mineral County in Superior, MT. The county is home to just over 4,000 people--not a lot by national standards but a lot by Montana standards--nurses, schoolteachers, construction workers, all folks who want reliable access to affordable care. According to the Mineral County Hospital CEO, a repeal of the ACA would mean a real loss to that community. The hospital would be probably shutting its doors.

Without a hospital in that community, folks would be forced to travel over 100 miles to deliver their baby or take an expensive air ambulance ride, which is a whole other problem, for emergencies that come down the pike, like a broken arm. And if I am a new parent or senior, I will not be taking that risk. I am going to be moving closer to a hospital. But there are a lot of folks who can't afford to leave their homes--in some cases, homesteads, where their families have lived for generations--to move somewhere closer to medical care.

I can tell you that in my small community, there are a lot of folks, who, when they hit age 65, have to move to a bigger town to be able to have access to the kind of specialty care they need. You can move that age down to age 50 if we lose these hospitals in these rural areas. These rural hospitals not only keep patients alive; they keep communities alive too. A repeal of the ACA--I am told by the hospitals--would kill those rural hospitals which, as I said before, would be another nail in the coffin of rural America.

Let's take, for example, the Billings Clinic, which is Montana's largest health care provider. They are responsible for innovating and providing critical resources to rural areas through things like telemedicine. But the Billings Clinic will not be able to make this large-scale impact anymore if their patients are no longer able to pay their medical bills because they lost their access to Medicaid, cost- free preventive care, or insurance from the marketplace. Repealing the ACA will restrict their ability to provide quality care and jeopardize their standing as a pillar in Montana.

It is not just hospitals either. It is community health centers serving over

100,000 Montanans every year, fully one-tenth of our population. They are at risk of losing 70 percent of their Federal funding.

Let me repeat: If health care progress is repealed, the community health centers in Montana will be at risk of losing 70 percent of their Federal funding. These devastating impacts are not unique to Montana, but this is how it is going to play out across this country in rural areas with hospitals and clinics--more uncompensated care, more trips to the emergency room without insurance, more hospitals facing the grim reality of having to close their doors.

Oftentimes I wonder if it really matters to Congress. It looks as if they intend to go through with their plan, which will have devastating impacts on the patients, and, by the way, it will have devastating impacts on their taxpayers.

Repealing this health care coverage without a replacement will add an additional $350 billion--$350 billion--to the deficit and the debt over the next 10 years, and this budget resolution will saddle the next generation with an additional $9 trillion in debt over the next decade.

You know, it is amazing. When I came to this body, there were folks talking about the debt all the time. In the last 2 years, I have heard little talk about the debt. With the exception of Rand Paul, everyone who was supposedly a deficit hawk voted to increase our deficit and debt by $9 trillion over the next decade. This would push our total national debt to nearly $30 trillion by year 2026. I stand with Rand Paul on this one. Hamstringing the next generation with additional debt is unacceptable, especially when you are taking away their health care coverage to boot.

As folks try to jam this bill through Congress, I have barely heard a peep about this increase to the deficit. Oh, my, how times have changed.

The folks who are normally card-carrying Members of fiscal restraint are now swiping the credit card of the next generation. I dare those Members to go back home and tell their neighbors that you are going to take away their health coverage, and, oh, by the way, you are going to add about $9 trillion to the debt too. Try to do that with a straight face.

I will be the first to tell you that the ACA isn't perfect. I have heard that also in my travels across Montana. Costs have gone up. Premiums are rising. Many hard-working middle-class families cannot afford health care. That is unacceptable. So we ought to do something about that.

Let's tackle rising premiums. Let's hold health insurance and drug companies accountable. Let's put patients before profits. But I am telling you, repealing all the progress we have made will not do that. We need to build on the successes we have had in the last few years, not tear them down.

Members of this body, quite frankly, this is not just a debate about health care. It is a debate about our economy, our growing deficit, the foundation of our rural communities.

The folks in this Congress who are pushing to repeal without a replacement will kick families off their health insurance, close down rural hospitals and clinics, and add $9 trillion to the debt if they succeed.

Rather than go down this dangerous path, I have a suggestion. Let's roll up our sleeves and work in a bipartisan manner to increase access and affordability, to lower the cost of care, to bring down prescription drug prices. I will tell you, I am willing to work with anyone: Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, whoever wants to have a serious conversation about improving our Nation's health care system. But I am not going to allow folks in this body to take us back to the old days, the days when our friends and families couldn't afford to get sick.

Members of the Senate, it really is time to listen to what is going on, on the ground. We have an opportunity to build on the progress we have made, and work towards a bipartisan solution that will work for the backbone of this country, the folks in rural America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Flake amendment is going to really result in less access for veterans across this country.

The VA already has some hiring challenges due to a severe national shortage of medical personnel. This amendment is going to set the VA back even further.

I will tell you why. It is going to prohibit the VA from hiring any medical professional who has ever had their license or credentials suspended. That means if it was done by administrative error, with that suspension, they wouldn't be able to be hired. If it got lost in the mail, they wouldn't be able to be hired. If they moved States and forgot to fill out the paperwork, those medical professionals wouldn't be able to be hired.

It is really going to undermine the VA's ability to attract some of the most topnotch medical professionals and take care of our veterans.

We have a medical workforce shortage in Montana. I am sure they do in Arizona. Why would we make the VA a less attractive place to work? Why would we want to do this? I would encourage a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, today I offer an amendment on behalf of the Nation's more than 21 million veterans and the more than 100,000 veterans who reside in the State of Montana. As I travel across my State, I hear from veterans who say: We don't want the VA privatized. As I talk to my friends on both sides of the aisle, they talk about the fact that we do not want the VA privatized.

Here is an amendment you can vote for; in fact, it should pass by unanimous consent. What it does is bring a budget point of order against any provision that would limit the veterans' ability to choose VA health care. It is as simple as that. It needs to happen so we don't privatize the VA. The veterans I talk to, once they get through the door, love the care the VA provides them. I would encourage a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. President, I would contend that it is germane, but I will not debate that now. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

On behalf of the 69 hospitals in Montana--

--I vote no.

Mr. President, I would like to make a statement about the Keystone XL Pipeline. This first came before this body some 4 years ago. I said at the time that the pipeline was a good idea. Why? Because it would create construction jobs. It would reduce America's reliance on Middle Eastern oil for our energy. I said also that the pipeline must be built right. What does that mean? It means two things. First, Keystone must be built to the highest of safety standards. That only makes sense. And we must have respect for private property rights when that pipeline is built.

Just like everything else in Washington, the Keystone was eventually made into a political football, and it has dragged on for 4 years. It has taken on a life of its own. And to be straight and level with you, folks on both sides of the aisle have turned it into something much bigger than it really is.

At the start of the 114th Congress, I was hopeful that there would be enough momentum behind the pipeline to finally get it done and begin construction. But since the swearing-in ceremony 3 weeks ago, my faith in our ability to have a deliberative debate has been shaken. Last week's political stunts were simply unacceptable. We can't tell the American people we are going to responsibly govern when in fact we stopped Senators from even speaking on the floor about amendments they have offered.

The majority decried these kinds of practices last Congress. Many of us agreed. But to start with these kinds of actions in the new Congress is discouraging, to say the least. I hope this week we can have an open debate, make this bill better, pick up a few more votes, and finally approve the Keystone Pipeline for building.

Ten days ago an oil pipeline burst in eastern Indiana. It spilled about 40,000 gallons of oil into and around the Yellowstone River. Six thousand residents in Dawson County, MT, had their water cut off for 5 days after oil got into the local water treatment plant. Cleanup crews are slowly making progress removing oil from an ice-covered river.

This oilspill was unacceptable. What is worse, it was completely preventible. The pipeline that burst last week was nearly 60 years old. It had not been inspected in at least 2 years. Pipelines, just like roads and bridges and railroads, get old and they wear out. If we want pipelines to operate properly, they need to be regularly inspected and upgraded.

In December, during the lameduck, Congress plussed up the budget for PHMSA--the agency that does pipeline inspections--giving PHMSA the resources to hire more than 100 pipeline safety inspectors. It is clear we need to get these folks hired, trained, and working on the ground. We also need to look at how PHMSA spends those dollars and whether resources are adequate to inspect the Nation's 2.6 million miles of pipeline.

Despite the criticisms, pipelines are still the safest way to transport oil. We have seen the headlines--we have all seen them--in recent years of oil trains exploding, trucks running off the road that carry oil.

In 2013, one explosion in Canada leveled an entire town. It killed 47 people. Months later, another oil train traveling in North Dakota burst into flames and caused an entire town to evacuate.

In northwestern Montana, the resort town of Whitefish is situated a few miles west of Glacier National Park. The town is home to a world- class ski hill and one of the world's most pristine lakes. Every day oil tank cars run past Whitefish Lake carrying thousands of gallons of oil. The environmental impact of an explosion or spill on that railroad would devastate that lake, and it would devastate that region, its water supply, and have serious impacts on the State's economy.

In fact, in 1989, a freight train derailed as it was circling Whitefish Lake and four cars slid into the water and leaked out some fuel. Twenty-three years later--just 2 years ago--they finally finished the cleanup. Imagine if those cars were carrying crude as they do today.

Pipelines are the fastest way to transport oil. Until this body can agree that climate change is real and start making smart investments in alternative energy sources, our economy still needs traditional ways.

I have said many times I still power my farm equipment with diesel fuel. I don't have any options. So it is clear to me we need a way to transport oil, and Keystone is that way. And, yes, in Montana, it will create jobs. According to the State Department's analysis, construction of the pipeline would create 3,700 jobs. Over $700 million worth of construction materials and support costs would come to eastern Montana. That is not to mention the tax base that would be increased. But safety must come first. We need the best materials; we need more inspections. We simply cannot afford another spill.

Finally, I want to talk about eminent domain. Everyone in this body should agree that a foreign corporation should not be allowed to seize private property here in America. That is a fact. Unfortunately, we couldn't agree on that last Thursday. There was an amendment offered by Senator Menendez stating that TransCanada can only acquire land from willing sellers. But there are Members of the U.S. Senate who put profits of a foreign corporation above the constitutional rights of American citizens. If someone had told me in January of 2007, when I was first sworn in, that my colleagues would one day vote against such an amendment, I simply would not have believed it, but that is exactly what happened. I am disappointed that amendment failed, but I do believe we can improve upon this bill by including commonsense reporting requirements that would ensure this pipeline is built in a transparent way.

Senator Cardin has an amendment to do just that, and I for one support it. Private property rights should not be a partisan issue, and I would hope my colleagues would join me in supporting this measure. Let's not race to cloture. Let's not race to trample private property rights of Americans. Let's get this bill passed, and let's do it in the right way.

This pipeline is not a long-term solution for our energy problems, but it is one piece of the puzzle. We must make meaningful investments in research and development so we can make carbon-neutral energy sources more accessible and affordable. Until we do that,

the reality is that this economy still runs on oil.

This pipeline helps get us to the next step. I still believe in this pipeline. I believe Keystone can boost our energy independence and will create jobs in the short term and over the long haul, but we need to debate this bill. We need a chance to make it better, to make the pipelines safer, and send a message to the American people we are serious about investing in our long-term energy future. If we don't do that, we won't build the Keystone.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I support the pipeline. I think it has a lot of good benefits, but make no mistake about it, if you do not support the Menendez amendment--and there are a lot of Aggies on the other side of the aisle. If you do not support this amendment, you will allow a foreign corporation--a foreign corporation--to come in and use eminent domain to take the property. We don't want to go down this line.

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

Madam President, it has come to my attention that a provision of the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act, which was included in the recently passed NDAA and public lands package, contains a ministerial error. Section 3077(c)(1)(A) of the NDAA describes a

mineral estate transfer between the United States and a private landowner. Both subparagraphs of that section should reference the same map, titled ``Northern Cheyenne Land Act--Coal Tracts'' and dated April 22, 2014. However, subparagraph (ii) as just passed contains an error by indicating a map with an incorrect title. Section 3077(c)(1)(A)(ii) should therefore be read to reference the ``Northern Cheyenne Land Act--Coal Tracts'' map dated April 22, 2014, which is the same map correctly referenced in subparagraph (i) of the same section.

The committee report for the underlying Northern Cheyenne Lands Act bill, S. 2442, will also acknowledge and address this error. I hope this drafting error does not delay the Department of the Interior's implementation of these provisions, which is of great importance to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe in Montana. This conveyance, once completed, will correct a mistake made by the United States over a century ago, when the United States failed to convey this property to the Tribe as originally directed by Congress.

I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his comments on the land portion of the national defense authorization. I very much appreciate the work he has done and his hard work fighting for the people of New Mexico since his time in the Senate.

We thank you very much for your leadership, Senator Heinrich.

Mr. President, 1 million people live in the great State of Montana. We are home to farmers, ranchers, working families, small business owners, and to bold sports men and women who explore until they are too exhausted to take another step.

Our lands are famous worldwide, from Glacier National Park and Yellowstone National Park to wild and scenic rivers such as the North Fork of the Flathead River. We attract the best explorers, the best hunters and anglers, and all those who simply want to get away from it all.

But our outdoors just aren't for out-of-staters. Montanans deeply value our land. Many Montanans remember their first hunting trip. Many recall where they landed their first trout. I remember riding horses with my father in the Bear Paw Mountains.

Montanans come with a lot of opinions, but one issue that unites us is taking care of our public lands and keeping our public lands in public hands. We want to make sure our kids and grandkids can hike in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, that they can catch their first fish in the clean waters of the Madison River, and that our outdoor traditions remain strong for generations to come.

As a Senator from Montana, it is my responsibility to make sure we preserve these treasured places, that we responsibly use our lands to advance the interests of our State and of our country. That is why I am proud to support the Montana lands bills that will probably be voted on tomorrow.

These bills are a product of years of negotiations. Ranchers and conservationists started working on the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act before I became Senator. These bills are a product of compromise led by folks on the ground--the folks who live and breathe Montana's outdoors every day--and these bills are a product of Montana's congressional delegation working together to move Montana forward.

We all know Congress fails to agree on much these days. Gridlock and roadblocks are common. Few people are willing to compromise, but when you give a little, you get a lot. That is how Montana's lands bills became a part of this legislation.

These bills have been vetted on the ground by Montana ranchers such as Dusty Crary, Karl Rappold, and many others. They have been approved by committees and negotiated for many years. They not only deliver on our promises to Montana's ranchers but also to the outdoors men and women, business owners, and Native American tribes. They are Montana- made bills.

Take the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act for example. This bill protects public access along the Rocky Mountain Front for hunters, anglers,

outdoors men and women. The Front is a special place in Montana lore. It is where the Rocky Mountains shoot straight out from the plains into the sky. It is a breathtaking, magnificent sight.

It is an ecosystem like none other in the lower 48 States. The heritage act designates 208,000 Front acres as a conservation management area, adds another 67,000 acres to the Bob Marshall Wilderness, and supports a noxious weed management plan.

At the same time, it allows for continued grazing access for Montana ranchers, follows BLM recommendations on approximately 14,000 acres of wilderness study areas, and requires new assessments of oil and gas potential in two others.

Some will question the details of this bill and others in the package, but Montanans know how to responsibly manage our lands. We know what irresponsible development looks like.

More than 100 years ago mining corporations pillaged our lands in their search for copper, silver, and other minerals. Not only did they turn our mountains inside out and pollute our waters, they ignored workers' rights and bought influence over Montana's elected leaders.

In response, Montana passed legislation to limit corporate influence in elections in 1912. We followed that in the 1970s with one of the most progressive State constitutions to date, enshrining protections for a clean and healthy environment into law.

A fellow by the name of Max Baucus got his first taste of politics during that Constitutional Convention, the same Max Baucus who worked on and introduced the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act in 2011. Passing this land bill helps fulfill Max's legacy in Montana and honors the hard work of his staff and the bill's many supporters.

Before Max introduced this bill, he received a letter from a rancher along the Front. Ben Pierce was his name. Ben told Max he wanted to see the Front remain a place with both well-managed working ranches and vibrant wildlife values.

Ben supported the bill because he knew that preserving the ranching culture was critical to Montana's economy and our way of life, but he also supported the bill because he knows we must preserve Montana's most special places.

That is because Montana's outdoor treasures are not only symbols of our heritage, they are also incredible economic drivers. Montana's outdoor economy, thanks to places such as Glacier and Yellowstone, creates or sustains some 64,000 jobs and contributes nearly $6 billion to the State's economy every year. That is impressive in a State of just 1 million people.

From outdoor stores to park cafes, Montana's economy thrives when Montana's outdoors are preserved and accessible. Preservation and access are also the cornerstones of the North Fork Protection Act, another legacy of Senator Baucus. The bill permanently protects the American side of the North Fork of the Flathead River watershed by barring future mining or drilling.

The land is adjacent to Glacier National Park. It is bound by snow- capped mountains, ringed by awe-inspiring valleys, and bisected by beautiful blue-green waters that are home to some of the Nation's best whitewater rafting.

Its Canadian cousin across the border is already protected. Thanks to this bill, the American side of the watershed will be protected from oil and gas development forever.

Preserving the North Fork is not only good for the wildlife or the hiker who enjoys it, it is also good for our economy and our nearby communities.

That is why this bipartisan bill is supported by the local chamber of commerce and by the mayor of nearby Whitefish, who said this bill's passage ``means permanent protection of our community's water supply,'' and we all know how important water is.

These two measures are not the only bills that will benefit Montana in this lands package.

My Cabin Fee Act provides economic certainty for folks who have seen their fees skyrocket on Forest Service cabins. Many of these cabins pass from generation to generation, and this bill makes sure family cabins can be enjoyed by those who cherish them.

This package also does right by our Native American friends. The Northern Cheyenne Lands Act restores the tribe's mineral rights to 5,000 acres within its boundaries, strengthening the tribe's control over its lands, resources, and trust funds.

It corrects an error that was made by the Federal Government more than 100 years ago. That, in and of itself, makes it a worthy endeavor.

But there are other areas where we can work together. Just as these bills are Montana-made solutions, we can--and I believe we will--come together over Montana-made solutions to better manage our forests.

For decades folks in Montana have argued over our lands, battled over access, and we have fought over resource development. We have sued and countersued over logging, but in Montana we haven't had a new wilderness designation in 31 years. Why? Because we haven't been able to compromise, but now we have. It means progress for Montana.

This agreement is bipartisan, and I was proud to work with Senator Walsh and Senator-elect Daines to bring it to reality. I hope we can find more ways to compromise over lands issues and other legislation moving forward because, after all, it is the future that matters most. Whether this body is debating immigration reform or an education system, how to rebuild infrastructure, we must always look to the future.

We want the best for ourselves and for our communities. We want to leave this world in better shape than we inherited it, and we want to pass down our treasured lands and outdoor traditions to our kids and our grandkids wherever they may live. Places such as the Rocky Mountain Front and the North Fork are living legacies to Montana's greatness.

There are many reasons to preserve these places, but the best I have heard comes from Gene Sentz, who hails from Choteau, MT. Gene wrote a book about the Rocky Mountain Front. In it he quoted another Montanan who said: ``Some places on Earth should be left alone, even if solid gold lies beneath it them.''

I couldn't agree more. Montana is home to sky-touching mountains and beautiful plains that roll on as far as the eye can see. It is home to many hard-working men and women and to Native Americans with deep connections to the land.

But it is the last best place because we are all of these things and because we are willing to work together to preserve and strengthen them.

I am very proud of this historic agreement, and today I am particularly proud to be a Montanan.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Benjamin Charles Steele, a veteran of World War II.

On behalf of all Montanans and all Americans, I stand to say ``thank you'' to Ben for his service to our Nation.

It is my honor to share the story of Ben's service in World War II, because no story of bravery--especially not one from our ``greatest generation''--should ever be forgotten.

Ben was born on November 11, 1917, in Roundup, MT. The son of ranchers, Ben loved the outdoors. Sometimes he would sneak out of school by pretending to go to the bathroom, but instead would jump on his horse and head for the ranch.

Ben was 22 when he enlisted in the Army Air Corps in Missoula, MT on September 9, 1940.

In September of 1941, Ben was assigned to serve in the Philippines.

Ben had barely arrived in country when the Army gave him a rifle and told Ben ``now you're in the infantry.''

The Japanese attacked on December 8. A few weeks later, Ben's unit was evacuated from Clark Field and ordered to the Bataan Peninsula. In January 1942, Ben was sent to the front lines.

Three months later, the front lines collapsed. Soon after, Ben's unit was captured and he and his fellow soldiers began the infamous Bataan Death March.

Ben marched for 6 days and was fed only two cups of rice. The American captives were tormented by the Japanese soldiers. They were forced to walk closely together, and if a prisoner stumbled, or worse, fell, they were bayoneted or shot and killed.

Ben was a prisoner for three and one-half years. During this time, at great risk to himself, he secretly made drawings of the torture and cruelty he and his fellow prisoners endured. On one construction project, 324 prisoners started work beside Ben. By the end, Ben was one of only 50 surviving prisoners.

Ben then was sent to Japan where he did hard labor in the Japanese mines. He was liberated once the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, with Ground Zero less than 80 miles from Ben's coal mine. When he was freed, Ben had dysentery, pneumonia, malaria, blood poisoning and beriberi.

Ben was discharged from the U.S. Air Force on July 10, 1946. After beginning his art career drawing on the concrete floor of a prison in the Philippines, Ben pursued a formal art education. In 1955, he received a master's in art from the University of Denver.

Ben then taught art at Montana State University-Billings. To this day, he continues to recreate the images of his imprisonment through drawings and paintings.

Ben was never ``officially'' assigned to the infantry; the military just handed him a weapon and told him to go fight--and he did. He fought for months before he was captured.

Ben is now 97 years old, living in a nursing home in Billings, MT, fighting his last battle--and still painting. Ben never requested any medals or recognition for his brave and incredible service. A true World War II veteran, Ben feels he simply did the job he was sent to the Philippines to do.

But today, it is my honor to honor Ben Steele's true heroism, sacrifice, and dedication to service by including his story in the Congressional Record.

Thank you, Ben.

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

Mr. President, as we hurry to finish things late in the year, we are running out of time to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, referred to as NAHASDA. This legislation was first passed in 1996 to consolidate Indian housing programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This block grant replaced 14 different housing programs operating in Indian Country. The law has been previously authorized twice in a bipartisan manner.

The housing needs in Indian Country are staggering. A recent GAO report stated that 5.3 percent of homes on Indian lands lacked complete plumbing. That compares to homes nationwide where less than 1 percent lack plumbing.

Tribal communities also face a serious housing shortage. In some cases, there are up to 20 people living in a single three-bedroom home. That is not by choice, by the way. That is by necessity. These are often extended families with three or four generations under one roof. This is unacceptable. We must do more to honor the trust responsibility the government has to American Indians.

The best tool we have to address this housing shortage is the Indian Housing Block Grant Program authorized by NAHASDA. Not passing this reauthorization places this program in jeopardy, and we should reauthorize it today.

Last year, during Senator Cantwell's tenure as chair of the Committee on Indian Affairs, she introduced a reauthorization bill. This bill makes a number of positive changes to the law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 334, S. 1352; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I object to the modification because of this: Setting aside the fact that Senator Inouye was a very good friend of mine, the Native Hawaiian Homelands Act was passed into law some time ago. As Native people, Native Hawaiians have sacrificed

their lands similar to Native people here and in Alaska. The Native Hawaiians here have similar needs to those whom I just explained.

The cost of housing in Hawaii is a significant barrier for Native Hawaiians. Reauthorizing the Native Hawaiian provisions will provide stability and assurances to keep housing programs for Native Hawaiians moving forward. For these reasons, I object to that modification.

I am disappointed that we cannot pass this legislation. This bill would not only reauthorize Indian housing programs with HUD but would streamline cumbersome environmental requirements and allow for more flexibility to build more modern, sustainable housing. This legislation would also reauthorize housing programs, as I said, for the Native Hawaiians, where the need exists in a big way.

I should also mention that the exact same provision was included in a bill that passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives last week on a voice vote.

Finally, this legislation will make the HUD-VASH Program available to tribally designated housing authorities through the Indian housing block grant. These funds will be specifically used for housing assistance for homeless, Native veterans, as well as those who are at risk of becoming homeless.

As many of my colleagues know, American Indians serve at higher rates per capita than any other population in the military and continue to be one of the most underserved groups of veterans.

With all these good things in it, I am extremely disappointed that we cannot get this bill across the finish line. Housing Native people should be a priority for Congress as we wrap up this session.

It is frustrating to see a bill get through the House only to have potentially a couple of Senators here hoping to get a better report card from a group such as the Heritage Foundation.

I am sorry we cannot pass the bill today. This is disappointing for any country and the Senate. I am more than willing to talk about germane changes, but the bottom line is this: Many folks here do not understand the trust responsibilities we have to our Native American people. If we are going to start carving folks out such as the Native Hawaiians, we are going to be making two classes of Native American people in this country. I don't think that is fair to them, nor do I think it is fair to this country.

With that, I yield the floor.

Are we in a quorum call?

I wish to address the challenges we have at the Postal Service today.

There is an old saying that when you are in a hole, stop digging. Don't make things worse. Don't shoot yourself in the foot. It is actually quite simple advice that all of us need to follow.

Here in Congress we could apply it to a lot of different issues. Our budget and the immigration system come to mind. But that hole grows faster when two parties are digging. When you have two shovels, the walls become higher, the climb out becomes more difficult, and that is what is happening right now with the Postal Service.

On one side we have the Postmaster General and Postal Service leadership actively cutting services and mail delivery standards. They think they can cut their way to fiscal solvency, and quite frankly in this case they are wrong. The answer is not more cuts. In fact, if it wasn't for the prefunding requirement for retiree health benefits, the Postal Service would have made nearly $1 billion in 2012.

Clearly, the Postal Service doesn't need to keep shutting down facilities and slowing down delivery. What the Postal Service does need is responsible reform legislation, and that is why I am here this afternoon.

All the Postal Service is doing with its shortsighted cuts is weakening trust in the Postal Service. Essentially, Postal Service leadership is cutting the legs out from underneath themselves. They are digging the hole deeper.

But Congress is in the hole with the Postmaster General. There are a lot of folks in Congress who would love to see the Postal Service go out of business, but the Postal Service, whether in urban America or rural America, delivers the goods America needs. It delivers medicine, newspapers, equipment, letters, and even election ballots. It is a critical part of our daily lives. But the Postal Service is preparing to end overnight delivery in all but a few American cities and close 82 mail processing facilities starting in January. These facilities route mail from New York to California, from Seattle to Sarasota, from a grandmother to her grandson.

When these facilities close or consolidate, it costs thousands of jobs, and more importantly it means mail goes to the remaining facilities and it means packages have to travel longer to get to where they are going. When that happens, more folks will not get the mail when they need it. It means more delayed credit card payments. It means more needed medicine sitting in a truck for another day. Come next election it might even mean lost ballots.

The Postal Service has already stopped overnight delivery in large parts of rural America. Even 2-day delivery is now hard to come by. If the Postal Service implements its new plan in January, that will be the case almost nationwide.

Congress has the power to stop these closures, and it would make sense to keep these facilities open while we work to reform the Postal Service in a way that treats its employees and its customers and the general public fairly. But in the Senate, and in the House, too many folks have their shovels out. So far the proposals coming out of this Congress fall far short of what is needed to put the Postal Service on sound financial footing.

We are here today to urge the House of Representatives and this body, the Senate, to include a provision in the government funding bill that will keep the processing facilities open. There is no point in closing mail processing facilities while Congress works on a comprehensive postal reform bill. I know we have trouble passing responsible legislation around here, I get that, but there is painstaking--and I do mean painstaking--work going on around here to pass a Postal Service reform bill.

The bill that passed the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee earlier this year needs work--serious work. It does not preserve strong rural mail standards. It is opposed by folks in rural America, by postal unions, and by mailers. Under the bill--except in the big cities--we can kiss 1-day delivery goodbye. With the cuts it proposes, the bill fundamentally prevents the Postal Service from performing its constitutional duty of keeping this Nation stitched together.

But along with other members of the committee, and some like-minded folks in the House, we are trying to find a way forward. We are trying to reform the Postal Service without putting the burden on rural America. A proposal I am working on will give the Postal Service the flexibility to raise new revenue while reducing the costly mandate to prefund retirement benefits. That requirement is swamping the agency's books.

Other Members of Congress are pushing to allow the Postal Service to continue its crusade against rural America. My effort, on the other hand, is a balanced solution that preserves strong rural mail standards while putting the Postal Service on the path to fiscal solvency.

We have been here long enough to know that there is no magic bullet. Congress is full of too many interests and too many constituencies, but the least we can do is to stop making things worse. There is no reason to keep digging the hole. We have evidence behind our case.

The GAO, in its analysis of past closures of the processing facilities, said the Postal Service is already unable to meet its reduced service standards--already unable to meet the standards that have already been reduced.

The Congressional Budget Office--looking at potential savings from facility closures--didn't take into account the loss of mail volume resulting from reducing the quality of service.

There are simply way, way, way too many unanswered questions about how these closures would affect mail service, and that is why a bipartisan majority of Senators, including myself, have called to stave off the closures of these processing facilities. Over 160 House Members have done the same.

A moratorium on mail processing facilities is the way to go. It will stop the bleeding and stop the digging that Congress and the Postal Service are doing right now. It will send a signal that the American people's representatives will not sit by as opponents work to privatize the Postal Service.

This is the busiest season of the year for the Postal Service. Folks send presents and cards through the mail. We hear from old friends and families whom we have not heard from in a long time. It is a busy and important time but no more critical than any other time of the Postal Service's year. Mail processing facilities don't just get used for mailing Christmas cards and presents, nor do the post offices. Reduced post office hours will affect Americans' lives as well.

Westby, MT, is in the far northeastern corner of Montana. It is along the border with North Dakota. It is a beautiful little town. The Westby Post Office is where Ken Keldsen, a veteran in his ninth decade, goes to pick up his prescription medicine. The mail takes a little longer to get to Westby these days because the processing plant was closed last year, and the post office is open for a few less hours each day.

Ken wrote my office and told me the reduced hours make it harder for him--this veteran in northeastern Montana in his nineties--to get his medication.

Here is what it comes down to: We need a reform bill that keeps the Postal Service financially viable while maintaining strong mail service standards for people such as Ken. It is not an easy proposition. We have been working on it for quite a while now. But the calls and need for reform are stronger than ever. There is no reason to keep digging. There is still time for Congress to stop the mail processing facility closures scheduled to start in January. That will give us more time to pass good legislation that sets the Postal Service straight.

I urge my colleagues in this body to do just that because this country needs a viable Postal Service, one that the American people can trust.

It is more than just holiday cards and packages. It is about making sure payments arrive on time. It is about making sure lease agreements get to the proper people, but it is not just about these things. It is also about having faith as a nation that we as a body--as a Senate, as a House, as a Congress--can make responsible decisions to preserve what is important in this country.

There has been a lot of talk about working together and getting things done since the election. I wish it could have happened before the election, but we are where we are. We have a great opportunity to work together to keep the Postal Service solvent and keep those standards high for not only urban America but for rural America also. We need to do that today. This is an important effort.

With that, I would love to hear from the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders.