Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, folks are coming to Montana from all over this country because of our clean air and clean water and the habitat it provides. Not only Montanans, but this entire country respects clean air and clean water. In fact, in Montana, it is Montana's Constitution that says we value clean air and clean water. The reason we place such a high importance on clean air and clean water is because we see what happens when it is put at risk. On numerous occasions, Montanans have been victims to corporations who treated Montana like a Third World country. They reaped the value of our natural resources, and then they left the American taxpayer to clean up the mess. Folks like the Anaconda Company, W.R. Grace, Glencore, just to name a few. They left a mess. It wasn't the EPA that left that mess. It was these corporations, and it is the EPA's job to make sure they clean up this mess, not out of the pocketbook of the American taxpayer. These folks, these corporations, have put our clean air and clean water at risk. Not only did they contaminate the land, they contaminated our local economies. One of the largest Superfund sites in this country is in Butte, MT. It took 16 years, nearly $150 million to clean up just a portion--just a small portion of what the Anaconda Company left behind after mining copper in Southwest Montana. In Libby, hundreds of people have died, and over 1,000 people are ill because of asbestosis due to asbestos exposure. Even though a local vermiculite mine closed in 1990, folks are still getting sick due to asbestos-related diseases. And for years, I have been fighting alongside the folks at Columbia Falls, MT, to hold Glencore accountable to that community for the cyanide and arsenic they left abandoned on the banks of the Flathead River near the gateway of Glacier National Park. Companies that put our clean water at risk cannot be trusted because they never stick around to clean up the mess they have made. We have seen it firsthand. And that is why we need an EPA Administrator who is going to side with the American taxpayer, with local economies, with local families, and hold the polluters and contaminators accountable for their shortsighted actions. It is for these reasons that I cannot support Scott Pruitt's nomination for Administrator of the EPA. Throughout his career, he has consistently sided with the big polluters over the local businesses and the local families. I am not convinced that Mr. Pruitt understands the critical role that clean air and clean water plays in agriculture and our outdoor economies. In my conversations with Mr. Pruitt, I received no assurances that he will be a champion for Montana's family farmers, ranchers, those who love to hunt, fish, and hike in Big Sky Country. Mr. Pruitt has endorsed policies that will put Montana jobs at risk and put our outdoor heritage on the ropes. Don't just take my word for it. Thousands of Montanans have contacted my office regarding Mr. Pruitt's nomination. Caitlin from Libby wrote me: No community understands the grave impact lack of regulation or failure to enforce environmental regulations can have on a community like Libby does. Four hundred people died in Libby because W.R. Grace mined vermiculite that was contaminated with asbestos. . . . These people died . . . when they were just doing their job. Libby doesn't want or need another person that looks the other way while big corporations prey on hard-working people. Stephen from Corvallis wrote: I am a farmer in Montana, and I regularly use pesticides, where I hope the EPA has my back to make sure these things are safe for me and the environment. . . . Farming continues to be less predictable, due to a change in climate. I want someone in that position that has my back as a farmer, not someone that questions broad scientific consensus. Rich is a retired public lands manager from Stevensville who wrote me saying this about Pruitt: Is not fit to be leading an agency responsible for protecting wildlife, clean water, clean air, and leading the charge of addressing a changing climate. Pruitt is anti- science, routinely disregarding well-established studies involving climate change. I recently retired . . . the thought of the possible damage and undoing of what I've lived and worked for over my [entire] life by this man is disheartening to say the least. Look, folks, the Earth's climate is changing. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about that. If we want to be able to continue to take our fly rod and go fishing down those rivers, you have to have somebody in the EPA who will ensure that we have clean water and clean air. I will tell you something that happened in Montana for the first time this year. The Yellowstone River closed. The bottom reason for it was the water warmed that much. If you are going to have good habitat for fisheries, if you are going to have good habitat for elk and big game hunting, if you are going to be able to go up in the mountains and hike, fish, bike, and do the things we do in Montana, you have to have somebody in the EPA that makes a difference. What we do today will not be felt today. It will be felt tomorrow. That is why today we need a man in the position of EPA who will fight for clean water and clean air. It is critical to our survival, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Stephen, Caitlyn and Rich are right. We need folks in the administration who will stand up and understand the value of clean air and clean water. Unfortunately, the President has nominated someone who can't deliver. Therefore, I will oppose Mr. Pruitt's nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise, as did the Senator from Georgia, in support of the nomination of Dr. David Shulkin to be Secretary of the VA. First, I wish to take this opportunity to thank Senator Isakson for his leadership of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and throughout this confirmation process--and throughout the many processes--as chair of the committee. Look, I think it is critically important that we have a Secretary of the VA to serve our veterans. I think Dr. Shulkin is the perfect person for that position. The solutions to the VA's problems should be based on common sense rather than partisanship or an extreme agenda. I think Dr. Shulkin recognizes that. He is committed to our Nation's veterans above all. Through the conversations I have had with him over the last year and a half, I think he understands the challenges ahead of us in the VA. The Choice Program, for example, which has been a wreck by anybody's standards, is looming with dramatic funding shortfalls and is a program we need to work on here in Congress--and we will on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee--to fix, and I think Dr. Shulkin is on top of it. I have many letters from veterans across Montana about how the Choice Program has not worked. It is not that it isn't a good idea. When we passed it, we all agreed that it was a good idea. But it needs to be changed to fix the needs of our veterans and make it more workable. One other thing is a big problem, and that is the workforce problem we have within the VA. The hiring freeze has made this problem even worse. We all talk about the backlog, and the backlog is real. But we need to make sure the VA has the people they need to serve the veterans in this country, whether reducing that backlog or whether it is making sure they get the care they need. Finally, and Johnny talked about this: privatization. He has reassured me he will oppose efforts to privatize the VA. Typically, this isn't a problem, but the administration has talked about it extensively. I think it would be a path that is reckless for our veterans, and I think the veterans service organizations would tell us that. Again, I express my support for the nomination of Dr. Shulkin to be VA Secretary. I believe he will stand up for our veterans. I believe he will put them above politics. Moving forward, I look forward to working with him and other Members in this body to make sure we serve our veterans the best we possibly can. Our veterans deserve no less.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Delaware, and I also want to thank the Senator from Georgia, who has about the same length speech as I have here--short and sweet. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of thousands of Montanans who have reached out to me in opposition to the nomination of Congressman Tom Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Health care in this country is a very complex thing. It has many moving parts. It impacts patients, doctors, nurses, hospitals, families, and rural communities in Montana and across this country. Recently, I traveled across Montana, speaking with folks from most of the 60 hospitals that we have in Montana. There is no doubt our health care system has some problems. Costs are rising, and families are being priced out of health care. There is no doubt about it--not all but some. But these problems to be solved require thoughtful, responsible solutions. These problems require folks to put politics aside and work together for the health of our country and for rural America and for our next generation. Over the years and throughout this confirmation process, Congressman Price has shown that he is not equipped for this vital and formidable job. Health care in this country is too important to turn over to a man who wants to reverse the progress, cut up the safety net, and rip away the health care that our seniors have earned. Everyone in this body knows that we have work to do to fix the Affordable Care Act, but each and every Senator also knows that the ACA has expanded coverage for millions of Americans, improved rural America's ability to recruit and retain health care workers, and moved us closer to closing the Medicare doughnut hole. We cannot make any of these improvements if we do what Congressman Price has promised and repeal the ACA, especially without a single plan to replace it. I would tell you, if one exists, I would love to hear it, and I would love to hear it today. So I want to work to fix the problems with the ACA, not send us back to a time when folks couldn't afford to get sick or couldn't change jobs due to preexisting conditions. Don't take my word for it. Joseph from Missoula wrote to me and said: I am a practicing cardiologist in Missoula. I am adamantly opposed to the nominee, Congressman Price. His approach takes us back to the 1980s, ignores the reality of life for a large portion of our population, and is inconsistent with our obligation to care for the least of our brothers. Joseph knows Montana cannot afford to go back to the old system. But Congressman Price has indicated that is exactly what he wants to do. In his confirmation hearing, when Congressman Price was pressed about President Trump's replacement plan, he played it off with a joke to a laughing audience. The health care of the American people is no laughing matter. We need a serious plan to address rising premiums and deductibles, but Congressman Price and President Trump have come up empty. In fact, Congressman Price's plan to repeal the ACA without a replacement is a serious threat to the health of our country. But the Congressman's attack on our health care system does not end with dismantling the ACA. He wants to take a chainsaw to the safety net that helps our hardworking, low-income families stay afloat. Last year in Montana, under the leadership of Gov. Steve Bullock, the Montana Legislature worked across party lines to expand Medicaid to thousands of Montanans, giving folks coverage for the first time in their lives. A man in Butte, MT, looked me in the eye, and he told me that because of Medicaid expansion--listen to this--for the first time in his life, he was able to go see a doctor, get his diabetes under control, and ultimately find full-time employment. Because of Medicaid expansion, this man was finally able to provide for his family. Congressman Price's proposals will rip that coverage away from that man and make it more difficult for others to use Medicaid as well. His plan to block-grant Medicaid will do exactly that, and I have heard from health care providers from across our great State that this will cripple rural America. In Montana, with the expansion of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, it has created hundreds of jobs in the health care industry, and we can't afford to let those jobs go away. Rural America cannot afford Congressman Price's reckless plan--or lack of plan--to replace the ACA. But Montana's working poor aren't the only ones threatened by Congressman Price. Our senior citizens often fall into the crosshairs of Congressman Price's irresponsible battle with the Affordable Care Act. President Trump campaigned on protecting Medicare for seniors, and I am with him on that one. If Congressman Price had his way, Medicare, as we know it, would cease to exist. He has supported budgets that would turn Medicare into a voucher system and cut the program by nearly $500 billion. Congressman Price's plan moves more of the burden of health costs onto our seniors. Under Congressman Price's plan, a senior in Glasgow, MT, who is struggling with dementia would receive a fixed amount of money and would be expected to go out, shop for insurance, and buy a private insurance plan. A couple retired in Whitefish would be forced to spend less time enjoying their final years together in order to comparison shop and wrangle with insurance companies--not really how most of us would envision retirement. A farmer from Fort Benton, who has given his blood, sweat, and tears to feed our country would be hanging up his dirty baseball cap for the last time and will have to worry about finding extra money in his savings to cover higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Does that sound like a fair way to treat our seniors? I think not. America's seniors have earned their Medicare over a lifetime of hard work, and because most of them live on fixed incomes, they can't afford to see it privatized. We cannot allow this administration to gamble with our seniors' future and their health care. Ann from Stevensville agrees. She wrote to me and said: Please do not support anybody wanting to privatize Medicare. No to Tom Price. But that is not all. Congressman Price's track record of fighting against affordable health care for all Americans is disturbing. Throughout his confirmation process, a disturbing pattern has emerged. Congressman Price has spent his 12 years in Congress pushing legislation that would make health care less accessible for the poorest among us and enrich himself by corporate special interests. In 2016, Congressman Price used an exclusive sale of discounted stock of a foreign biotech company to line his own pockets. Now he is nominated to lead the agency that would directly impact this company. Congressman Price underreported his holdings in this company by as much as $200,000. Now, I know $200,000 may not seem like a lot to some folks, but I am going to tell you, to this Montana farmer and to farmers across this country, we would remember if we had $200,000 or so invested in a company. He introduced legislation to lower the tax bills of three pharmaceutical companies that he personally held investments in. CNN reported that during his time in the House, Congressman Price invested in a company and then 1 week later, introduced legislation to delay regulations that would have hurt that company's bottom-line profits. Patients, nurses, doctors, and hospital administrators got a raw deal while Congressman Price and his corporate special interests got richer and richer. As an elected official, as a potential Secretary, you are held to a high ethical standard. Congressman Price failed to reach that standard. President Trump pledged to drain the swamp. Congressman Price's record shows that he swam with the alligators for a while. It is clear to me that Congressman Price's priorities put him at odds with the fundamental job of HHS Secretary. Congressman Price's record is not one of expanding access to affordable care, increasing coverage to rural America, and protecting the Medicare that our seniors have earned. The legislation that he has carried in the House enriched himself and the companies he has invested in. I think Elaine from Lolo, MT, said it best when she wrote to me and said this: I believe we should be expanding health care coverage for Americans, not making it more difficult to access and afford. Price wants to scale back Medicare and Medicaid, is out of touch with the realities of the challenges and needs for reproductive freedom and safety, and has financial conflicts of interest that would potentially skew his judgment. A better choice should be demanded for the person who will lead Health and Human Services to ensure our country has the best possible healthcare and service support for the needs for all humans, not just those in line with Rep. Price's interests. I urge you to vote no on Price's appointment. I will be watching the vote closely. Thank you. Well, I couldn't have said it better myself, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote no for Elaine, for Montana seniors, for Montana families. Well, they are all going to be watching closely. I would encourage a ``no'' vote on Congressman Price. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

Mr. TESTER. I say to Senator Durbin, there has been a lot of talk about the fact that the number of Cabinet appointees were much higher in the Obama administration than they are now. Could you take us back 8 years ago? I mean, we just confirmed a lady to be Secretary of Education who has never spent 1 minute in a public school classroom, on a school board, teaching, student, otherwise. There are claims out there about some of these nominees being involved in insider trading. There are claims out there that some of these nominees did not pay their taxes. Could you take us back 8 years ago and tell us how those folks were treated, if there was anything wrong with them when they came to this floor?

Mr. TESTER. I want to thank the Senator from Illinois for his history lesson on the confirmation process over the last 8 years, at least in the Senate. I want to speak today on behalf of the thousands of Montanans who have asked me to oppose the nomination of Mr. Sessions as the Attorney General of the United States. As this country's top law enforcement official, the Attorney General must stand up and fight for all Americans. The Attorney General must provide a voice for the folks who often are not able to speak for themselves. The Attorney General must enforce the law as it is written, not how the President wishes it was written. I believe Mr. Sessions has proven time and time again that he does not fulfill these qualifications, and therefore I will oppose his nomination for Attorney General. Mr. Sessions opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. This landmark legislation protects women from domestic violence and sexual assault and brings perpetrators to justice. In my State of Montana, this law helped provide over $10 million every year to support women and children. Those are critical resources that make a real difference in the lives of women, children, and their families, and they keep our communities safe. The Violence Against Women Act supports shelters like the Friendship Center in Helena, which is literally saving lives and protecting women and children from violence every day--in fact, they help over 1,000 Montanans each and every year--or programs like Rocky Boy Office of Victims Services, which is in the Rocky Boy Indian Reservation. Thanks to the Violence Against Women Act, this has helped reduce the number of sexual assaults on that reservation. If he is confirmed, I would invite Mr. Sessions to Red Lodge, Missoula or Browning, and the many other places in our State to see how the Violence Against Women Act is saving lives and making communities safer. I invite him to sit down with the survivors at any of the YWCAs in Montana and explain to them why he opposes the Violence Against Women Act. As Attorney General, Mr. Sessions will be responsible for administering critical resources through the Violence Against Women Act, resources that will save lives, but as a Senator, Mr. Sessions has turned his back on the survivors of domestic violence. I am not confident he will be there for them as Attorney General. I will not support a nominee for Attorney General who opposed legislation that helps us better investigate and prosecute violent crimes against women, but that is not all. I am not convinced that Mr. Sessions will stand up for the privacy laws of law-abiding Americans. Less than 2 years ago, right on this Senate floor, Mr. Sessions fought to preserve the most intrusive aspects of the PATRIOT Act. That was not the first time he supported unchecked government surveillance. Mr. Sessions has voted in support of the most intrusive aspects of the PATRIOT Act seven times--seven times. He is a staunch advocate for the NSA's bulk data collection, which violates the privacy of millions of Americans. If Mr. Sessions is confirmed as Attorney General, will he push back and fight our government that undercuts our freedoms? Will he fight on behalf of government officials who listen into our phone calls, or scroll through our emails or preserve our Snapchats? Will he intervene if the government once again spies on citizens without a warrant? I think the answer to that, quite frankly, is no. When government agencies like the NSA collect bulk data, they do so at the expense of our freedoms. If Mr. Sessions is not willing to protect our Fourth Amendment rights, can we expect him to fight for other constitutional rights? Will he fight for the First, the Second, the Fifth? Again, the answer is no. We need an Attorney General who will fight and protect our individual freedoms, not one who is willing to sacrifice it. I am not alone. Thousands of Montanans have contacted my office opposing Mr. Sessions. Here are some of the things Montanans have written to me. Anne from Missoula wrote me: Please vote against the nomination of Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. He has a history of supporting the weakening of our civil liberties. Voting rights should be strengthened, not weakened. His support of the Patriot Act and opposition of the Violence Against Women Act are just a few of the many egregious positions that he has taken. Susan from Bigfork: Please vote no on Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. She is an inappropriate choice due to women's issues and civil liberty issues. He has shown poor choices in protecting voting rights and women's choices. Jerilyn from Belgrade: Jeff Sessions is completely the wrong person to be Attorney General. His record on civil rights and women's issues belong in a different century. Amy from Whitefish: Vote no to the nomination of Jeff Sessions, who has shown himself time and again to be no friend to equality or civil liberties. Please know that we in Montana expect you to uphold our desire for all members of this great Nation regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation or sexual orientation, to be treated with respect and dignity. Charles from Livingston: He voted no on the Violence Against Women Act. That ``he'' being Mr. Sessions. Mr. Sessions voted no on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes. He voted yes on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. Now, I agree with Anne and Susan and Amy and Jerilyn and Charles and thousands of other Montanans. Because of that, I will not support Mr. Sessions, and I will urge my colleagues to oppose his nomination. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today to address the potential confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. I rise today not just as a Senator from Montana; I am a former public school teacher, a former public school board member. I have a mother who was a teacher and an aunt who was a teacher. I have a daughter who is a teacher. I have a sister-in-law who is a teacher. I have a number of teachers in my family. They all have either taught at or currently teach at public schools. When I was growing up, education was a critical part of what we developed into. Public education was something that my parents thought was very important. That was instilled in them by my grandmother, who over 100 years ago immigrated to this country from Sweden, due in part to the public education system we have in this country today. When I came home from school every day, my mother would quiz me on what went on in public education. By the way, I went to the same school she did. She would find out what had transpired, both the interactions with the kids and what went on academically in the school, and also offer me a hand if I needed help with the academic portion. We would talk about my experiences in the public school because it was important. She knew it was important. She was the daughter of a homesteader. When she was a child, homesteading wasn't exactly looked upon kindly by the ranchers of the community. They thought homesteaders were taking away their right to make a living--breaking up that good grass and putting wheat on it, making it so cattle couldn't continue to graze there. There was a lot of friction between ranchers' and farmers' kids. They all went to the same public school. In my particular case, it was Big Sandy Public Schools. In the environment of that public school, those kids learned to get along. What resulted from that was the ``greatest generation.'' We live in a world today due in much part to their figuring out a way to get along, figuring out a way to communicate, figuring out a way to make the world a better place. That was due I think entirely because of the public education system we have in this country today. Our public education system is--and this cannot be argued--the foundation of our democracy. When I was growing up and the Vietnam conflict was going on and there were conflicts around the world, everybody said: You know, these countries need to have a democracy. And then there was a realization that without an educated population, democracies really don't work. We have had a democracy in this country for nearly 250 years because of the success of our public education system. We have had a middle class in this country that has been the envy of the world because of our--listen to me--public education system. It is the foundation of our democracy, it is the foundation of our economy, and it is a place where we learn to live together peacefully. What is troubling about the nomination of Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary is that she wants to privatize this public education system we have. I had her in my office. We talked about vouchers, and we talked about privatizing education. We talked about accountability. Her response to the public education system was that it was failing. Her response to that was, pull a few kids out. Pull the kids out who don't have any disabilities, pull the kids out who are a little smarter, and put them into a classroom, and that will be what makes this country great again. This country is already great, and if we do that, I am here to tell the people of the Senate today that we will destroy the foundation of this country and we will destroy--it may take a few years--we will destroy our democracy. It would be different if Betsy DeVos had spent 1 hour, 1 minute, 1 second in a public education classroom. She was not educated in public schools. She has not dealt with public schools. I dealt with it as a teacher. I dealt with it as a school board member for 9 years. In fact, my second public service job was on the Big Sandy School Board. It is important because my first one dealt with soil and soil conservation, and my second one dealt with education. She has been in neither of those positions. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter that she wasn't in those--except it does because if you don't touch base with what is going on and see the successes that are happening in public education, you can have a warped view of what is going on in this country right now, and that warped view will cause you to do things like say ``You know what, we are going to put up charter schools, we are going to have vouchers, and ultimately we are going to take away public education as we know it today.'' Instead of saying ``You know what, we are going to invest in accountability, we are going to invest in teachers' salaries, and we are going to invest in a 21st-century education system so our kids can compete,'' the answer is ``No, we are going to pull kids out of the school.'' I am going to tell you a secret. I taught in the late seventies. I am far from a master teacher; I taught for a couple of years. I quit teaching because I could do anything else in society and make more money. I could cut meat for a day and make as much money as I made teaching school for a week. Wouldn't it be a little bit smarter, instead of privatizing the schools, as Betsy DeVos wants to do, to invest in those schools? Let's give the kids the maximum opportunity we can give them. Let's value public education, and let's value education. I am going to tell you what happens in a rural State like mine with privatization. My school system in my hometown of Big Sandy has about 175 kids. That is not an exception for Montana; there are a lot of schools that have 175 kids or fewer. By the way, that is not high school; that is K-12. Let's say that for whatever reason, somebody wants to set up a charter school a few miles down the road and suck a few kids out of Big Sandy and maybe suck a few kids out of the Fort Benton school system and a few more out of the Chester system. Pretty soon, they have their little charter school, and there is less money to teach the kids who are left in those public schools. What do you think is going to happen to those kids who are left there? That is going to take away from our public education system. Ultimately, it will cause those schools to close because the money that funds our education is at a bare minimum right now. The other thing that has happened in our public education system is that Congress--people here--has made the promise to local schools to fund kids with disabilities, the IDEA Program, things we can do to help fix public education. Let's fund what we promised--40 percent. It is funded at 16 percent right now. So if we had a person who was going to go in as Secretary of Education and said: You know what, this is a problem, and we are going to fight to make sure that folks have the money from the Federal level to be able to teach the kids; and we are going to live up to our promise; and, by the way, IDEA is a good program that needs to be fully funded, and the Federal Government needs to do their part at 40 percent, I may have a different opinion. But that is not what she wants to do. She, in fact, wants to do something far worse than that. She told me she wanted to block grant the money for IDEA, which would further put another nail in the coffin of schools around the country, and then put three or four in the rural schools. It has been documented here earlier this morning that the phones have been ringing off the hook. They have been ringing off the hook opposed to Betsy DeVos. There are 1 million people who live in Montana. Over 3,000 people have contacted me opposing her. I have had 20 contact me to support her. Phones are ringing off the hook. In fact, the phones are ringing to the tune of 1,200 to 1,500 calls a day. The phone system has shut down. There are some Senators who aren't even answering their phone because they don't want to hear it. But the truth is that public education is important in this country. People know what is at risk here. To have somebody who has never spent any time in the classroom of a public education system is asking for catastrophic results. I am going to read a few comments from people in my great State who have sent me emails and letters about Betsy DeVos. Here is one from Melee in Missoula: Mrs. DeVos has no place in our national education system. She is clearly not prepared nor does she even have the most basic experience to do this job well. Our students, teachers, and parents, deserve an excellent candidate, and she is not it. Kelly from Laurel: As a mother of an 11-year-old daughter, the thought of this woman in charge of our Nation's school system scares me. Sandy from Billings: It would be nice to have an Educational Secretary who has actually worked, I say WORKED, in education instead of some rich woman who has never spent a day in public schools. Kim in Kalispell: We need an Education Secretary that knows what the I-D-E-A Act actually is and the needs of rural school districts. We can do better and our kids deserve better. Jenessa from Froid wrote me quite a long letter. I think it is particularly poignant, so I want to read this to you. It is a little bit long, but I think it is very clear. I want to back up a little bit and tell you that Froid is a very small town, not unlike Big Sandy. It doesn't have a lot of kids, but it has great people. Here is what Jenessa says: After marrying my husband, a local farmer, in August 2010, I put down my roots with plans to spend my entire teaching career in Froid. With Mrs. DeVos pushing for private school funding, our small school will be one of the first to suffer. Having two small boys that will be soon entering into their school years, they will be the third generation to walk the halls of Froid Public School. I want them to be able to spend all 13 of their public school years in the same school. As an educator, I have seen what a small rural school can do for a student. While we may not get the same opportunities as large schools, when the opportunities knock on our door, we have a large percentage of students take advantage. They have pride in their school and their community. Montana is currently suffering from teacher shortage. With a lack of funding, this shortage will only get worse. I am currently in the process of earning my Masters degree in Educational Leadership. With this degree, I have been given the opportunity to become the principal of our small school. A school my family attends, my roots are dug, and I do not want a woman like Betsy DeVos having control over [our school]. Please vote no. A vote for Betsy is a vote for private control. A vote for Betsy is against the community of Froid. A vote for Betsy is against Froid Public School. A vote for Betsy is a vote against public school teachers across this country and against the great State you represent. A vote for Betsy is a vote against my family. A vote for Betsy is a vote against me. Mary from Red Lodge: As a 32-year veteran educator in a rural public school, I am deeply concerned about the appointment of Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary. I'm inclined to say that her loyalty and financial backing of Mr. Trump were the reasons for the misguided appointment and not her experience and knowledge in education issues. To be in such an esteemed position as Education Secretary, one would expect years of experience and an advanced degree to understand the ongoing issues we face in U.S. education. Sara from Billings: As a first grade teacher in a low-income school, I believe wholeheartedly in Montana's public schools. Betsy DeVos believes in school privatization and vouchers. She has worked to undermine efforts to regulate Michigan charters, even when they clearly fail. The marketplace solution of DeVos will destroy our democratically governed community schools. Her hostility towards public schools disqualifies her. She will not work to provide a free and fair education to my students who struggle every day with hunger, with homelessness, and more. I am asking you to vote against the confirmation of Betsy DeVos. But I have heard from far more than that--from parents to grandparents, to doctors, to average Joes who oppose this nomination. Education is something that affects everybody's life. In my opening remarks, I talked about the need for public education for democracy to work and exist. As a former school teacher and as a former board member, I can tell you that there are a lot of things we can do to make public education better, and we ought to do it. There are hard things to do. It is much easier to say: Let's just destroy the program and privatize it, and then see what we end up with. That would be a bad decision, and that is why we should not vote for Betsy DeVos. The impacts are huge. They are huge on our economy, they are huge on our form of government, and they are huge for us being a leader in this free world we live in. In closing, I want Montanans to know that we have heard you. You called, you wrote, and you contacted me on Facebook and Twitter. Your message has been loud and clear. It is a message that we are hearing all across this country. It is a message that, quite frankly, if we confirm this lady, will not make America great again. In fact, it will, over time, destroy this very country that we love. As to people who I talk to who say: The Secretary of Education doesn't matter; it is not going to affect me--I don't know whom you are kidding. The fact of the matter is, this will affect every school in every community in this country. We can say President Trump got elected, and he needs to have the team that he wants. I am not going to vote for a team that destroys the public education system in this country. I would not be doing a service to the people who came before me--the previous generations--and I certainly would not be doing a service to my kids and my grandkids and the generations to come after. This is a very important decision. If we want to do the tough work of debating our public education system and determining how we can make it better, get the best people in the classrooms, and get the best academic material in there for them to work off of, let's do that. But let's not destroy the public education system that has made this country great for generation after generation after generation. I urge my colleagues to stand with the thousands of Montanans and the millions of Americans who have told us to vote no on Betsy DeVos. Madam President, I yield my remaining postcloture debate time to the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Patty Murray.

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a great man, a colleague, and my friend: Jamie Wise. It was nearly 10 years ago that Jamie joined Team Montana. The passionate Representative Rosa DeLauro had toughened him up and groomed him for success in the world's most deliberative body. As a newly elected Senator ranked 100 in seniority, one of the first decisions I made was to hire Jamie. Some may say it is tough to break into Team Montana. We are few but proud, an independent but tight-knit family, a little unpolished, but persistent and most often underestimated. Jamie fit right in. With his sharp wit and dry sense of humor, he quickly became a Montanan. Hailing from his adoptive hometown of Great Falls, it was a natural fit for him to tackle my veterans, defense, and homeland security portfolios. And tackle it he did. He wrote my first bill that was signed into law to more fairly reimburse veterans who are traveling to and from their doctors' appointments. It may seem like a simple thing, but it has been life changing for veterans all across this Nation who cannot afford a tank of gas but are facing debilitating medical conditions and need to see their doctor. This bill would set the stage for Jamie's long and incredible career in my office. Jamie's dedication to Montana has taken him down into the silo of an intercontinental ballistic missile, from the embassy in Yemen, to the Port of Wild Horse on the border of Canada. Needless to say, his legislative chops are unmatched on the Hill. His ability to look 1 inch ahead while also calculating the roadblocks 100 miles away is a skill that can't be taught. It is instinctual. Jamie worked hard, long hours and rose through the ranks from legislative assistant to legislative director and ultimately chief of staff. It was common to find Jamie sitting in his office into the wee hours of the night plowing through appropriations bills, making sure Montana got its fair shake. Those long hours produced real results for families and small businesses across the State. You can see Jamie's fingerprints on hundreds of letters, thousands of press releases, and the careers of dozens of young, aspiring staffers. James D. Wise has left his mark on this world, and I can't wait to see what he takes on next. So today, I wish to thank Jamie on behalf of this Nation, 1 million Montanans, and one grateful Senator.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. 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. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. 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.

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. 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.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. 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. TESTER. 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. TESTER. 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. TESTER. 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.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER.--I vote no.

Mr. TESTER. On behalf of the 69 hospitals in Montana--

Mr. TESTER. Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of nearly 100,000 veterans who live in Montana. These are folks who have earned our deep respect and gratitude. I have traveled the State many times, listened to their ideas, and I have listened to their concerns. Montana's veterans have not been shy about expressing their views. What I have heard is this. There is no doubt that we must hold the VA accountable and work to improve access to health care, jobs, education, transportation, and housing for veterans. That is why it is critically important that we are taking marching orders from veterans and the advocacy organizations that are led by veterans, because we know that their top priority is to do right by the folks who they serve. Veterans in Montana also tell me that when it comes to solving the problems facing veterans, they expect folks in Washington, DC, to check their politics at the door and go to work. Unfortunately, there are groups out there that are funded by dark money. They hide their out-of-touch political agenda behind the veil of our Nation's veterans. As the incoming ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have serious concerns about who President-Elect Trump is listening to when it comes to honoring our veterans and this Nation's commitment to those who have worn the uniform. That is why it is so troubling that recent news reports have indicated that the Trump administration is relying heavily on guidance from Concerned Veterans for America. Concerned Veterans for America is a political advocacy group funded by the Koch brothers, who want to dump unlimited amounts of dark money to push dangerous policies that would privatize the VA or to convert the Veterans Health Administration into an independent, nongovernment- chartered, for-profit corporation. CVA also wants to divert funds from the VA and cripple its ability to plan for the long term to recruit doctors and nurses and to invest in the information technology that can improve veterans' experiences at the VA. These cuts will undermine the quality of care at the VA. There is nothing wrong with helping veterans get specialty care in the community in a timely fashion when the VA cannot do it. That often happens in rural communities, but CVA's push for wholesale dismantling of the VA is not what we want, and that is not what the veterans need. We need to talk to the veterans--the veterans I have spoken to--and this is what we will see. When folks volunteer to serve in the Armed Forces, this Nation is indebted to them. We must ensure that we deliver on those promises that are made. Privatizing the VA will fail our veterans and their families. It will reduce the quality of care that our veterans receive, and it will be more expensive for taxpayers. Privatizing the VA will ultimately mean that veterans will wait longer for doctors' appointments and the cost of care will go up. All we have to do is take a look at the Veterans Choice Program, which allows veterans to access care at private facilities. It has resulted in longer wait times, and this is unacceptable. Under this program, veterans are actually waiting longer to see doctors. Hospitals are increasingly frustrated and refusing to see veterans, and costs are going through the roof. Imagine this program on steroids. That is what the CVA wants to do--all while starving the VA's existing workforce and infrastructure. In fact, what CVA is pushing for is similar to what Speaker Ryan wants to do with Medicare, and we have seen the backlash to that proposal by seniors across this Nation. The same is true with the veterans and proposals to privatize the VA. It is simply bad policy. Groups such as the VFW, the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and many others oppose privatization, and they oppose it for good reason. The American Legion national commander, Dale Barnett, said it best: The private sector didn't send our heroes to war. Uncle Sam did. Barnett is right. The Federal Government has an obligation to honor those incredible sacrifices. When we shirk that responsibility, it dishonors those brave men and women. We need to listen to the American Legion and countless other veterans groups, whose mission is to help the veterans, not unravel the VA. Veterans service organizations are very different and have a very different mission and tax structure than Concerned Veterans for America, the first being that VSOs take their cues from the veterans they represent, not from billionaire political activists who fund their operation. Groups such as the Legion, the VFW, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America are organized as nonprofit groups whose missions are simply to help veterans. Concerned Veterans for America is an issue advocacy group with a political mission. VSOs disclose their donors. CVA doesn't have to. Yet CVA has incredible influence and the ear of the President-elect. This is deeply concerning to me and, more importantly, it is deeply concerning to the veterans across this Nation. I talk to veterans every week when I am home in Montana. They universally tell me that they like the care they receive from the VA once they get in the door; the problem is getting in the door. They don't want to see a private doc; they want to be seen by a VA doc. They know that the VA understands their unique issues. They know that doctors and nurses at the VA are attentive to the wounds of war. My hope is that President-elect Donald Trump starts talking with the folks who want to help veterans and not to organizations with a political agenda. My hope is that he will work with Chairman Isakson and me and countless other reputable veterans groups to hold the VA accountable while increasing access to care. My hope is that he will work with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to reform our campaign finance laws so that we can increase transparency and know who is trying to influence this government. My hope is that he will put veterans first as he chooses the next VA Secretary. I remain hopeful that we can find common ground to work together to hold the VA accountable, to improve care, and to ensure that we are all delivering for veterans. When our brothers and sisters and sons and daughters are sent to war, we make promises to them--promises we must keep. When they come home, they are changed people, and we cannot expect the private sector to address these seen and unseen wounds of war. In this upcoming Congress, there will be incredible opportunities to make progress, and I am fully committed to Montana's veterans and veterans across this country and their families, and I will push back against those who attempt to undermine the noble mission of the Veterans' Administration. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. TESTER

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