Floor Statements

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. 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?

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?

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. 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.

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.

Too many.

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. 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?

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.

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.

I thank the Senator.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

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. 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

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.

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. President, it is unfortunate that we couldn't sustain this budget point of order because it truly is an emergency situation, particularly in the West. We have seen the number of fires we have had. Without the emergency designation, it does some bad things to our budget next year.

With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

I would like to talk about the FISA Amendments Act. I thank Senator Wyden for his leadership on this issue and for offering an amendment to this act that I have cosponsored and will speak on in just a minute.

On our vote tomorrow, I will say that I will reluctantly plan to oppose the vote on the FISA Amendments Act when we get to final passage. There are many reasons for that. I am not naive. I do understand there are people out there who want to do harm to our Nation. I very much appreciate the folks in the intelligence community who do

difficult behind-the-scenes work to keep us all safe. But at the same time, I believe our civil liberties and our right to privacy need to be protected. I do not believe they are sufficiently protected under the current law. So simply extending current law for 5 more years is irresponsible, and it is not a reflection of our values.

There are a few ways this bill falls short. I am especially concerned about the practice of reverse-targeting. The deputy majority leader talked about it about an hour ago.

The intelligence community does not need a warrant to conduct surveillance on someone located overseas. I think we can all agree there is no problem there. The problem comes when the intelligence community conducts surveillance on someone overseas where the real purpose is to gain information about someone right here in America. That can happen without a warrant, and we should not let that happen without a warrant.

Our national security is not threatened if we require this information to be tagged and sequestered and subject to judicial review. It would merely ensure that the information intercepted overseas in the form of communications to or from an American citizen would have to be overseen by the courts. Current law is supposed to prohibit this practice, but there really is no way to enforce the prohibition. That leaves the door open for abuse. That is simply unacceptable.

Unfortunately, neither Senator Wyden nor I are able to offer our amendments that would address this hole in our privacy rights.

We can do better. We can also do better when it comes to transparency. The simplest amendment the Senate can approve today is the one I am proud to consponor. It is the Wyden amendment to require the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress on the impact of FISA amendments on the privacy of American citizens. It is a commonsense amendment.

The report could be classified but would no longer allow the intelligence community to ignore requests for information from Congress. Why in the world do we not require the intelligence community to be accountable to us for its actions? It is our responsibility in Congress to hold the entire executive branch accountable. If we do not ask these questions, we are simply not doing our job. That is true whether it is President Obama, President Bush, or some other President.

I hope we can adopt the Wyden amendment to improve the reporting requirements of FISA. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3350.

Mr. President, Senator Udall of Colorado and I are offering this amendment to provide the Forest Service with sufficient resources to meet the demands of wildfire fighting this fiscal year.

Our amendment to the Sandy supplemental would close the gap between the budget request and the actual expected need for wildfire management this year. Over the last 15 years, the cost of wildfire suppression has increased fivefold, but the Forest Service's budget certainly has not. The reason we have had wildfire suppression increasing by fivefold is because the frequency and severity of fires have both increased.

The Forest Service, instead, has had to borrow money set aside for nonfire purposes, cutting into important programs such as timber production and watershed restoration. Borrowing

against other accounts is occasionally unavoidable, but it is generally bad policy. We have a chance to avoid this situation by adopting my amendment No. 3350.

The West experienced its worst fire season in decades this past year. Over 1 million acres burned in Montana and over 9 million acres burned across the country. Three States had major emergency disaster declarations due to fire. We cannot afford to get caught unprepared this coming summer. Nearly one-fifth of the West remains in extreme or exceptional drought, and over 60 percent of the High Plains remains in extreme or exceptional drought. Let's be prepared. Let's be responsible. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment tomorrow.

With that, I yield the floor.

No. I understand that the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act not only recognized the uniqueness and significance of that jurisdictional arrangement but specifically provided that, following the enactment of the Settlement Act, no future congressional legislation would in any way alter or affect that arrangement unless Congress specifically so provided. This requirement is set forth in Title 25, Section 1735, of the United States Code.

Yes. I understood that, given the requirement that Section 1735 imposed on Congress, this provision would not and should not apply within or to the State of Maine unless Congress specifically so provided. Knowing that Section 1735 operated to that effect, I did not include specific language making this legislation inapplicable to Maine, as such language was unnecessary. Our Senate colleagues should understand that this legislation in no way supersedes Section 1735.

Yes, I understood that the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and the Maine Implementing Act constitute statutory settlement documents. Therefore, our colleagues should understand that the current legislation respects the intent of the parties to Maine's historic and complex settlement and does not in any way disturb the settlement agreement or the statutory construct on which that settlement rests.

The intent of this legislation is to improve communication, response times, and recovery of disasters in Indian Country while better respecting tribal sovereignty. I understand that tribes in Maine have a unique relationship with the State of Maine and nothing in this Act should be interpreted to change or degrade that relationship.

This legislation, if enacted into law, would in no way change the relationship between the State of Maine and the tribes of Maine. That means that, even after the enactment of this legislation, if any of the tribes of Maine wished to obtain a declaration from the President that a major disaster existed, they would have to bring their request to the Governor of Maine, who would have to consider the request in accordance with existing standards and procedures but who would retain the discretion to deny that request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 3350.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3350.

Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks on amendment No. 3350. This past summer was the third worst fire year in the history of this great country, with over 9.2 million acres burned. Over 1 million of those acres were in the State of Montana. The drought that drove this year's fire season persists and is projected to worsen in 2013, creating conditions for an equally or potentially greater fire season this upcoming year.

This trend is not stopping. Conditions are changing on the ground. I think we are all seeing impacts. I am certainly seeing impacts on my family farms. We are seeing impacts across the forests of this country, and western Montana is no exception.

My amendment with Senator Udall does two things: First, it provides funding for the difference between the current funding request to prepare for and suppress wildfire and the amount the 2013 fire season is expected to cost; second, it requires GAO to make recommendations on a better model to project the cost of wildfires in the future.

Wildfires are continuing to burn, and burn hotter and faster, larger and earlier, and doing more damage than in past years. We need to assure the resources to address these catastrophic events are there this next year and with a study into the future.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer condolences to the families and the communities of Newtown, CT, and to offer my condolences to the family of Daniel K. Inouye, the Senator from Hawaii.

For nearly a week now, my thoughts and prayers have been with everyone in Connecticut and all those families whose lives have been changed by the murders in Newtown. Like so many Americans, Sharla and I continue to struggle with the news. We prayed for lives that were lost and grieved for their families and their loved ones.

As a former teacher, but more importantly as a father and grandfather, I can't begin to make sense of the violence, especially against children--children, our future, the same age as my grandkids, exposed to the unthinkable actions of an assassin. No one can make sense out of it. I don't think we ever will. But we can offer hope.

We can offer our solidarity as Americans who unify in tragedy to look ahead--shaken with grief but strengthened with courage. In the days and weeks ahead, we will work together to address the unspeakable violence that has hurt our Nation. As a Senator, it is my responsibility to address the growing issue of violence in America, particularly as it applies to schools and public places, and to stand to ensure the safety of our children.

While we mourn the deaths of innocent children and their educators, we must bring ourselves together for an honest, real, national conversation about every aspect of this terrible attack. It will be a difficult conversation, but it is the responsible and necessary next step for the children of this country, for the children of Montana, and I look forward to rising to the challenge.

Remembering Daniel K. Inouye

Earlier today, I had the opportunity to sit in the Presiding Officer's chair, and I heard many Members of this body speak of Senator Inouye. Some spoke of him as a distinguished voice, a Senator's Senator, a great hero, a true patriot, a singularly iconic leader, an incredibly great man, a giant of the Senate, a mountain of Hawaii, and the list goes on and on and on.

You know, they say the hardest thing to get in life is a friend, and the easiest thing to lose in life is a friend. Danny Inouye was a friend.

I will never forget when one of my neighbors came out to visit me. Dan's office is right next door to mine in the Hart Building. Now, make no mistake about it, before I came to this body I knew of Dan Inouye's past as a war hero, as a part of the Watergate investigative committee. He truly was somebody I knew before I got here through the media.

Well, so did my neighbor. After I had been here for a while I started to take Dan for granted. He was just one of us. So my neighbor was here, and we were standing in the anteroom of my office and Dan Inouye came walking out of his office. My neighbor's eyes almost rolled out of his head and fell on the floor. He wanted to meet Dan. Why? Because he was a great American and he knew it. He knew this was an opportunity he shouldn't pass up.

I stopped into Dan Inouye's office today and passed along my condolences to the staff and had the opportunity to walk back into Dan's office. One of the things that was pointed out to me was a sugar contract that set right above his chair, right in front of him. It was what he looked at every day when he sat at that desk--a sugar contract his parents had. Why? So he didn't forget where he came from. And all the time Dan Inouye served in this body he was probably as grounded as anybody ever could be because he never forgot where he came from.

When I first got here, I was trying to get on the Appropriations Committee. I went to visit Senator Inouye, and he said he would help, and he did.

Dan Inouye was going to Cody, WY, and he flew into Billings, MT, and drove down to Cody for a veterans event. In doing so, he drove through forests that were brown and dead, and he came back and asked me: What is going on with the forests in Montana?

I said: Dan, I have a bill called a forest jobs and recreation act that will help remedy that problem. Dan's response was: Sign me up as a cosponsor. He was always there to help.

I remember one time in the cloakroom he was telling a war story about after he had gotten his arm blown off. They were laying on stretchers-- this was in the 1940s, and medicine has come a long way since then, remember. But they were laying on stretchers, and there were many folks there, many with limbs missing, and he said there was a man of the cloth giving last rights. They came to Dan and Dan said: No, I am not going anywhere. And he stayed with us, thank goodness, and came to the Congress and then to the Senate. What a man. What an incredible man he was.

He always sat at our table at the caucus lunch, and when he came in he referred to me as ``Big One,'' and then proceeded to lecture me as to why I needed to lose weight if I was going to stick around here for a while. I always appreciated that.

Another time we were in his office visiting about some legislation, and out of the blue he asked me how many men I had on staff. I was going down the list counting them when he said: You know how many I got?

I said: No.

He said: I got two because women are better.

That was Dan Inouye. He also had a connection to probably every State in the Union, and Montana was no exception. He always spoke of Mike Mansfield with great passion.

When I was in his office earlier today I noticed on the wall he had a picture of Ted Stevens, LBJ, Warren Rudman, and, of course, Mike Mansfield. On that picture, Mike Mansfield, then-majority leader, had written to my friend Senator Dan Inouye: ``With admiration, respect, and affection.''

I can't say it any better.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor of Col. Donald M. Singer, an airman who fought in Vietnam and a hero of America.

Donald and his wife Elizabeth had four children.

He was stationed as an Electronic Warfare Officer at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. This Nation called Donald Singer to service in Vietnam in April of 1966. After training in California and before his deployment overseas, Donald got to attend the confirmation of his oldest daughter, 10-year-old Susan. That was the last time Susan saw her dad.

Maj. Donald Singer was selected to be part of an elite group of airmen known as the ``Wild Weasels.'' In August of 1966, on a mission north of Hanoi, North Vietnamese forces shot down his F-105 fighter jet. Both men on board ejected.

Nobody knows exactly what happened after that. But reports indicate Donald's parachute never fully opened. And he was never heard from again. The U.S. Government considered Donald missing in action and despite his status, promoted him to the rank of colonel.

Eleven years later, in 1977, the Singer family got a phone call. Donald's remains had been found. And at last, he was coming home to the United States. Today, Colonel Singer's remains rest at Arlington National Cemetery.

Although Colonel Singer was a decorated airman, his family never received all the honors he earned in service to this Nation.

It was my honor to present them to his daughter Susan, on her birthday, December 7, 2012. On behalf of a grateful nation, I presented Col. Donald Singer's Purple Heart, Air Force Commendation Medal, and his Presidential Unit Citation.

It was also my honor to present the Bronze Service Star for the National Defense Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Ribbon, and the Bronze Service Star for the Vietnam Service Medal.

These decorations are small tokens, but they are powerful symbols of true heroism, sacrifice, and dedication to service.

They are presented on behalf of a nation that will never forget Donald Singer's heroism.