Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, before I call up my amendment and get to the issue of our veterans in this country, I want to say a few words about a good friend and a legendary Montana conservationist named Jim Posewitz, who passed away a few weeks ago. He was a towering figure in Montana and in the history of conservation in our great State. He was a man who knew right from wrong, and Montanans know that he was almost always right and seldom wrong. Poz's accomplishments are too long to list, but any Montanan who fished in the Missouri River, learning the ethics of hunting or hiking in Montana's Rocky Mountain Front, owes a deep debt of gratitude to Poz's more than 30 years of work for the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and to his post-retirement work as a conservation advocate, ethicist, and leader. The Wilderness Act of 1964 says that America's wildest places are those where man himself is a visitor. Poz understood that power, that magic, and the importance of these places. He was relentless in his fight to protect them, and he was uncompromising in his faith that they bring us closer to nature, to each other, and to ourselves. He never stopped fighting for Montana and for the wild places in Montana. My heart goes out to Poz's family, including his life partner Gayle; his sons, Brian, Allen, Carl; Matthew and Matthew's wife Heather and their daughters, Sarah and Lindsay; his son Andrew and Andrew's wife Kelly and their daughters Madison and Charlotte; his stepdaughter Ann and Ann's husband Nate and their children, Joslin and Lyzander; his stepson Clayton and Clayton's wife Michelle and daughter Ayla. Poz is also survived by his brother John and John's wife Mary and their four children. He will be greatly missed. He is somebody they only make one of, an incredible human being. Amendment No. 1972, as Modified

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1972, as modified, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to turn to the issue of the day, and that is this amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. Senator Reed talked about it a few minutes ago because, quite frankly, justice is long overdue for thousands of veterans who are currently suffering and dying from illnesses related to exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. You know, one of our most sacred duties is to take care of those who are wounded in service to this country, and the fact is, this administration, the Trump administration, has refused to expand the list of presumptive health conditions associated with Agent Orange to cover illnesses such as bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, and Parkinsonism. They don't seem to think that exposure to these toxic chemicals in Vietnam is a cost of war. Well, let me tell you, they are wrong. It is a cost of war. The fact is, this administration wants to outlive the Vietnam veterans, and they don't want to pay for it. Every time we get in a situation--and I should say the last time we got in a situation, for sure--we sent off our young men and women in the military, and we put the cost on the credit card for our kids to pay and don't think a thing about it, but when they come back and they are changed, all of a sudden, we don't want to pay for it, especially when these conditions, in particular, already meet the historical standard to be added to the Department of Veterans Affairs' presumptive list for service connection. Now, this is not just me talking. This is the National Academies of Medicine weighing in with their reviews of scientific evidence-- scientific evidence. Each day this administration stonewalls benefits, more and more veterans are forced to live with the detrimental effects of their exposure without the assistance that not only they have earned but that we owe them--veterans like Bill Garber from Great Falls, MT. In 1967, Bill enlisted in the U.S. Army, and within 6 months he was sent to fight in Vietnam, where he served as a combat engineer and demolitions expert with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division. During his yearlong tour in Vietnam, Bill saw heavy combat, and like most military folks who were in Vietnam, was exposed to Agent Orange. Now, more than 50 years later, after his service and his sacrifice, Bill suffers from tremors diagnosed as Parkinsonism, one of the three conditions that would be covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs if this amendment passes. Bill's story is heroic, but the truth is, he is one of tens of thousands of Vietnam veterans in this country who are still waiting for this White House to grant them the benefits they have earned. No more waiting. No more trying to outlive the Vietnam veteran. My amendment directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence already put forward by veterans, scientists, and medical experts, and provide Vietnam veterans with the benefits they have earned in service to our country. Today, we have an opportunity to end the needless suffering and disappointment for an entire generation of veterans who are counting on Congress to simply do the right thing. The reality is that taking care of our veterans is a cost of war and is a cost that must be paid. We must hold this administration accountable on behalf of thousands of veterans like Bill who gave so much for this country, and I urge my colleagues to get this done with a ``yes'' vote on this amendment so we can end the wait for veterans who have already sacrificed greatly and who shouldn't be forced to wait 1 minute longer. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Great American Outdoors Act. After yesterday's vote, where we voted to move to debate this bill at an 80-17 margin, it felt good. It felt good because some of us have been fighting this fight to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, in particular, for more than a decade. It is a program that Senator Udall explained yesterday that has worked out so very, very well since his dad introduced it back in the sixties. But the Great American Outdoors Act does more than just permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is a huge accomplishment in and of itself. It also puts money into our Park Service and areas around our parks that are so important for this country. Really, the park system is one of the jewels of this Nation. President Teddy Roosevelt was truly a visionary. At a time when there were plenty of wild places in this great Nation, he had the good sense to preserve some of them for future generations because he knew they would not be around forever. Quite frankly, the National Park System encompasses 419 parks, more than 84 million acres, including two crown jewels in Montana-- Yellowstone and Glacier National Park. These are places where Americans come together and experience the scale of America's natural beauty. However, I will tell you, in recent years we--the Congress--have not lived up to President Roosevelt's legacy, and our parks have been left to fall in disrepair. Even as we have seen record numbers of visitors each year, the U.S. Congress has failed to make parks a priority and even make investments in them. So the Great American Outdoors Act will go a long way to correcting Congress's neglect. In fact, it invests $9.5 billion in deferred maintenance on public lands across our country. Those are not only our national parks, but the areas around our national parks, preserving the legacy of America's great outdoors for generations to come. While this is very, very important--this investment in our national park system, the first part of this legislation--we also need to know that we have places in this country, ecosystems in this country that will not be around for future generations if we don't preserve them today, and that is where the Land and Water Conservation Fund comes in. The LWCF is the most important conservation tool we have at the Federal level. Nothing else comes close to it. It was founded five decades ago, and Montanans have used about $540 million of this fund to increase outdoor opportunities on our public lands around our State. We have used it to preserve tens of thousands of acres of world class elk habitat in central Montana. It has been an essential driver of Montana's growing $7-billion-a-year outdoor recreation economy. And it has established city parks and open spaces in our more urban communities in Montana. The best of it all is it doesn't cost the taxpayers a dime because the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as it was set up, was to take money from offshore oil and gas revenue. Well, that hasn't worked out so well, so today we are just saying that it is going to be funded, and it is going to be funded permanently into the future. The LWCF is a no-brainer. It has overwhelming benefits for States in which investments are made for pennies on the dollar. We are receiving jobs, and we are receiving quality of life. We are receiving the ability to go out and hunt and fish and hike on our public lands. Unlike any other country in the world, we have these areas where you don't have to be a millionaire to be able to go out and enjoy the outdoors. But these victories did not happen magically overnight. The fact is, we worked long and hard with local conservation groups and public land enthusiasts around the country to build support where it never existed before, and our years of work finally broke the dam earlier this year when President Trump and Senator McConnell reversed their opposition to this legislation because of overwhelming bipartisan momentum that we had built on the ground. I welcome their change of heart, and I know it didn't come easy. There are so many Montanans and folks around the country I want to thank for putting in the work and bringing my colleagues from darkness to light. Your work has inspired me and inspires future generations that are going to benefit from your selfless efforts. I was at home last night, and I got a text message from one of those folks that said: Thank you. Thank you for your hard work for the last 13 years on LWCF. I sent him back a text that said: I don't deserve the thank you. You do because, quite frankly, there have been folks that have been working on this much longer than I. But now, since the vote yesterday, the clock is ticking. Every day we are losing ecosystems in this country, and because of our tardiness in not fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund, we have lost plenty of those ecosystems over the last 10 years, and we will lose even more if we don't get this funding. The future of our Nation's wild places hang in the balance, and we have something to do about it this week. We can fix it. So I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes on the Great American Outdoors Act so that we can preserve our public lands for future generations, for our kids and our grandkids, just as that visionary President Teddy Roosevelt did for us I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I was absent when the Senate voted on vote number 112 to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar #697, Michael Pack, of Maryland, to be Chief Executive Officer of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. On vote number 112, had I been present, I would have voted no on the motion to invoke cloture on Mr. Pack.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I was absent when the Senate voted on vote number 113 to confirm Executive Calendar #697, Michael Pack, of Maryland, to be Chief Executive Officer of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. On vote number 113, had I been present, I would have voted no on the motion to confirm Mr. Pack.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I was absent when the Senate voted on vote No. 104 to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 655. Victor G. Mercado, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense, vote No. 105 to confirm Mr. Mercado, vote No. 106 to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 652, Brian D. Miller, of Virginia, to be Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery, and vote No. 107 to confirm Mr. Miller. On votes Nos. 104 and 105, had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture and confirm Mr. Mercado. On votes Nos. 106 and 107, had I present, I would have voted no on the motion to invoke cloture and confirm Mr. Miller. Mr. President, I was absent when the Senate voted on vote No. 108 to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 656, James H. Anderson, of Virginia, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. On vote No. 108, had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture on Mr. Anderson. Mr. President, I was absent when the Senate voted on vote No. 109 to confirm Executive Calendar No. 656, James H. Anderson, of Virginia, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. On vote No. 109, had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to confirm Mr. Anderson. Mr. President, I was absent when the Senate voted on vote No. 110 to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 644, Drew B. Tipton, of Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas. On vote No. 110, had I been present, I would have voted no on the motion to invoke cloture on Mr. Tipton. Mr. President, I was absent when the Senate voted on vote No. 111 to confirm Executive Calendar No. 644, Drew B. Tipton, of Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas. On vote No. 111, had I been present, I would have voted no on the motion to confirm Mr. Tipton.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I was absent when the Senate voted on vote No. 103 to confirm Executive Calendar No. 602, John Leonard Badalamenti, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida. On this vote, had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to confirm Mr. Badalamenti.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, during the past couple of weeks, I have been talking to Montanans about their needs as we deal with this coronavirus. Healthcare officials tell me that folks on the frontlines need more masks, more protective equipment, and, quite frankly, this bill does not get that done. It helps, but it doesn't get it done. Small businesses and their employees are telling me that they need immediate access to relief. This bill doesn't do that because, quite frankly, we need more on the front end on bridge loans. Tax credits are great, but you have to be in business to be able to take advantage of those. Mayors and local city officials are worried that if they can't keep up with the mounting needs their communities are facing, this bill fails them. Tribal leaders across Montana have made it clear to me and to other folks in this body that they are largely and unfortunately ignored in the bill before us. This bill is nearly $2 trillion. One of the things it does do, and I know there are folks on the floor right now who disagree, but the fact is, massive corporations through that $500 billion slush fund, which, I might add, has very little, if any, transparency or accountability--it goes to those folks. Look, I think all of us agree that $2 trillion is a lot of money. It is all borrowed money, and if there is ever a time to borrow money, it is in economic times like these, but this needs to be a targeted, temporary support to keep our economy going. As the Senator from Connecticut said, the fact is that this bill, particularly this slush fund, is not a good use of taxpayer money. It would allow an unelected official with no accountability to the American people to dole out $500 billion while hiding the receipts for months, if not longer. I know there are Senators who say: Well, they can get warrants for these loans. They must get warrants for these loans. These companies can take advantage of hundreds of billions of dollars of this money and continue to lay off some of those same taxpayers who are supporting them through their taxes. Montanans know we can do better, and they expect better. Working together, I am going to tell you, we can get this done. There isn't a person in this body who hasn't filled a leadership position outside of their service to the U.S. Senate. You know that you need to negotiate and you need to compromise. If that is done and it is done in good faith, we will have a bill before the day is done. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today at a pivotal time for our Nation. It is quiet today in Big Sky Country. Over the last 36 hours, we have seen schools, restaurants, bars, gyms, ski resorts, and churches close. Thousands of children are home from school, many unsure where their next meal will come from, and parents are without childcare. There are no test kits to test for coronavirus to speak of--a few, but not nearly enough, and inadequate medical supplies in Indian Country. Thousands are concerned about what it means for their paychecks. Seniors are worried about their health. Businesses are forced to make very, very tough choices. Millions of Americans are depending on us here in Washington, DC, to act and to act quickly. The House jumped into action and began negotiating with the administration on a bill to address some of the most pressing and immediate concerns of the coronavirus. A deal was struck, and the House passed the bill with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. And what happened in the Senate? Well, last Thursday, the majority leader sent us home. Business as usual. What we should have done--we should have stuck around and done the people's work. But, instead, my friends in the majority decided we should operate as business as usual and take off Friday, take off the weekend, and go home. Well, this is not business as usual. If the majority leader would have listened to the CDC, he would have heard that what he did last Thursday was contrary to the recommendations they have made to avoid groups, to avoid airports. We did just the opposite. Millions of Americans are waiting for the Senate to act. What we are here to consider today, which we should have considered last Saturday, is an important start toward providing needed relief. It provides free testing, sick leave, unemployment insurance for those losing their jobs through no fault of their own. We could have done this several days ago, but, instead, we continue to wait. We continue to wait as we have watched athletics shut down-- the NCAA, baseball, hockey, basketball, NBA--restaurants, Broadway, schools close. The list goes on and on, and we continue to languish here in the U.S. Senate, supposedly the greatest deliberative body in the world. We do this while 4 in 10 Americans struggle to cover an unanticipated expense of $400. Let me say that again: 4 in 10 families are $400 away from financial crisis. This bill ensures that a hotel employee in Billings can stay home if she is feeling ill without sacrificing that $400 for rent, groceries, or childcare. A quarter of a million Americans go without medical care for fear of the cost. This bill ensures that no one is going without healthcare or coronavirus tests for fear of the expense. More than that, the bill would increase the amount of funding for Montana's Medicaid Program to cover additional Medicaid expenses. Many kids in Montana rely on lunch that they get at their schools as the primary source of nutrition for the day. This bill will allow those students to continue to get lunch even if the schools are closed. Seniors who are homebound rely on meal delivery services such as Meals on Wheels. Missoula Aging Services is already preparing to use its allotment of millions of dollars in additional revenue for senior nutrition, for providing more meals for seniors who are following recommendations to stay home. This pandemic is already causing significant impacts to our economy. We know that all too well. This is why this bill addresses unexpected unemployment and helps small businesses cover paid sick leave for those who need it. Under this bill, low-income pregnant women and mothers with young children who lose their jobs due to COVID-19 will be able to access food assistance. All of these are commonsense, bipartisan solutions that the Senate has delayed for no good reason. On the farm, when there is work to be done, especially when it is time-sensitive work, you don't take a break. You get the job done. I call on my colleagues not to waste another moment--to hold a vote and get the job done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his comments. I come here today to express some very similar ones. I come here today at a sad time--a sad time for Americans and especially a sad time for Montanans. You see, at the end of January, we lost three great Americans who paid the ultimate price for risking their lives for our allies down under. Those three great Americans are Flight Engineer Rick DeMorgan, First Officer Paul Clyde Hudson, and Captain Ian McBeth, who is a Montanan. They all lost their lives when their plane went down fighting a devastating bush fire in Australia. Captain McBeth lived in Great Falls, MT. He was a dedicated pilot and servicemember. He was a member of both the Montana and the Wyoming Air National Guards and he completed several combat deployments, including tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Captain McBeth was one of the best pilots Montana had to offer. It was as if he was born to fly C-130s. But even more, he was born to be a caring father, husband, brother, and son to the incredible family he has left behind. At 44 years of age, he was taken from them far too young. Captain McBeth was devoted to his family, leaving behind his wife, Bowdie; his kids, Abigail, Calvin, and Ella; and his parents and siblings, whose hearts have to be aching right now. My wife Sharla and I are keeping them in our prayers and in our hearts through this trying time. Captain McBeth heard the call to serve this country and did so honorably, taking that call to duty even further to help the folks in need on the other side of the world to fight wildfires. Now, Montanans are no stranger to the risks that come from fighting wildfires, but that doesn't make it any easier when we lose one of our own. Captain McBeth and so many other Montanans who bravely run into danger when others run out--these are our heroes, plain and simple. We owe a debt of gratitude to Captain McBeth that can never be repaid. Montana has lost one of its finest, and he will be missed. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I am going to read a statement and then I am going to go back through the information that I used to make the decision to be able to write this statement. Montanans sent me to the U.S. Senate to hold government accountable. I fought to allow this trial to include documents and testimony from witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the allegations against the President, regardless of whether they were incriminating or exculpatory, so that the Senate could make its decision based on the best information available. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues and the administration blocked this information, robbing the American people of their legitimate right to hold their elected officials accountable. Based on the evidence that was available to me during this trial, I believe President Trump abused his power by withholding military aid from an ally for personal political gain, and that he obstructed legitimate oversight by a coequal branch of government. It is a sad day for this country and for all Americans who believe that no one--not even the President of the United States--is above the law. So how did I get to this point? Well, just a little over 2 weeks ago, we came into this Chamber and we started hearing testimony. That testimony resulted in these two notebooks full of notes, because, quite frankly, the House managers laid out a compelling case. The defense made their arguments, but the case of the House was incredibly compelling. An impeachment is a solemn time. It is not something we should be taking without the deepest and most serious consideration. I compare it to a vote to send our people to war. But in this particular case, there was very little transparency, and none, if the President would have had it his way, of information coming to this body during this trial. This, in fact, is the shortest impeachment trial of a President ever. If we are going to have information to make good decisions--and I always said if you have good information, you can make good decisions--then, the President really needed to open up and cooperate just a little bit. This is the first time ever that we had a trial with no witnesses and no documents--a trial in the Senate with no information from the executive branch. And I get it. I get ``executive privilege,'' and I think there are times when executive privilege has to be used because the information is sensitive. But I have to tell you that the Williams letter is a prime example. I went down to the SCIF. I read it. I have to tell you something. If there is something in there that needs to be classified, you have me. The information in that letter was information that I knew before I went in the SCIF. It is the same with many of the emails--if not all of the emails--that the President has requested to be classified and kept away from this body and kept away from the press. That is not the way this democracy should work. It should be open. If things are done, the people should be allowed to know. There are moments in time when documents have to be classified on sensitive information, but I am here to tell you I have seen none of that. I think many of the FOIA requests that have been brought forth show heavily redacted email messages, and then when we find out what was really in them, there was no need for that redaction. So when it comes to the obstruction of Congress, the article II impeachment, I don't think there is any doubt that the President obstructed our ability--the Senate of the United States--to do its job as a coequal branch to make sure that the executive branch is being honest and forthright. Let's talk about the abuse of power. There is a lot of information that was brought forth during this trial about what the President did. It has been stated many times on this floor over the last nearly 3 weeks. The fact of the matter is, there is little doubt that the President withheld the aid to an ally for the purpose of creating a position where they had to do an investigation if they were going to get that money, or at least announce that investigation on a U.S. citizen who happened to be a political foe, to corrupt our next election. There is no doubt about that. Many of the folks who are not going to vote for impeachment have already said that the President has wrongdoing, but it is not an impeachable offense. And I am here to tell you, if anybody in this country--especially the President of the United States--corrupts an election and that is not an impeachable offense for the President of the United States, I don't know what is. Fair elections are a foundational issue for this country, and to corrupt our elections is something that we need to hold people accountable for if they have done it. And I will tell you that the prosecution proved that point beyond a shadow of a doubt. I would also say that if you take a look at the episodes that happened before we got to this point that have actually nothing to do with the impeachment, but it does have something to do with the point that the defense said about folks having been calling for impeachment since this President got in office, I offer you this: Freedom of speech is something that is very important to this country. And I can tell you that when the President first got into office and he got in a fight with the Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of Sweden and got in a fight with the Prime Minister of the best friend the United States has, Canada, I was critical of the President. When the President pushed back on NATO and embraced every dictator in the world, from Putin, to Erdogan, to Xi, to Kim Jong Un, yes, I was critical of the President. When the President pulled troops out of northern Syria and left our allies the Kurds on the field alone, I was critical of the President. When the President did his trade wars that put American family farmers and Main Street businesses at risk of closure, I was critical of the President. And we should be. That had nothing to do with the impeachment, but it absolutely has everything to do with your freedom of speech. Today--tomorrow, I should say--we are going to vote on whether to convict or acquit the President on taking taxpayer dollars and withholding them from an ally that is at war with an adversary for his own personal and political good, and we are going to vote on whether to convict a President of withholding information from the entire executive branch. And the only ones who testified were those patriotic Americans who defied his order. We are going to vote whether he obstructed Congress. This is a no-brainer. He absolutely, unequivocally is guilty of both article I and article II of the impeachment. So the question is this: If it goes as predicted tomorrow and the President gets acquitted, where do we go from here? I am very concerned about where we go from here because the next President will use this precedent to not give any information to a coequal branch of government when we question them. The next President will use this as, geez, if it is good for me and my election, it is good for the country, as Dershowitz said. So, Katy, bar the door. As Chairman Schiff said yesterday, if you think this President is going to stop doing these actions, you are living on a different planet than I am living on. This will empower him to do anything he wants. At some point in time--if we want to listen to what the Framers said--at some point in time, we are going to have to do our constitutional duty. It doesn't appear we are going to do it this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk for the House managers.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today to recognize LTC Sarah D. Eccleston for her exemplary dedication to duty and service to the U.S. Army and to the United States of America. Over the past year, she has served as the congressional analyst and congressional liaison in the Office of the Army Surgeon General. LTC Sarah Eccleston was born and raised in Dillon, MT, and began her Army service in 2001 as a cadet in the Reserve Officer Training Corps, ROTC. In 2004, she was commissioned as a distinguished military graduate from the University of Utah ROTC Program and received her bachelors of science degree in nursing from Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT. On her initial assignment as a lieutenant, she served as a staff nurse on a 32-bed multidisciplinary medical-surgical unit at the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood, TX. She then attended the Critical Care Nurse Course at Brooke Army Medical Center, BAMC, in Fort Sam Houston, TX, where she began working as a clinical staff nurse in the surgical trauma intensive care unit at BAMC. In 2009, she deployed with the 10th Combat Support Hospital out of Fort Carson, CO, to Baghdad, Iraq, where she worked as a critical care nurse. Shortly thereafter, she began working as the 2nd Brigade ROTC nurse counselor at Fort Dix, NJ. She completed her time with ROTC in May of 2012 and was selected for long-term health education and training through Widener University, where she received a master's in nursing. After graduating as a critical care clinical nurse specialist, Lieutenant Colonel Eccleston was assigned to Madigan Army Medical Center in Fort Lewis, WA, where she oversaw policy and quality of practice in three intensive care units. Prior to her current assignment, in the summer of 2018, Lieutenant Colonel Eccleston was selected to serve as the executive nurse fellow to the Chief and Deputy Chief of the Army Nurse Corps. After graduating as a critical care clinical nurse specialist, Lieutenant Colonel Eccleston was assigned to Madigan Army Medical Center at Joint Base Fort Lewis-McChord, WA, where she oversaw policy and quality of practice in three intensive care units. Montanans and all Americans owe LTC Sarah Eccleston the deepest gratitude for her decade of active service to this Nation. I wish Sarah and her family all the best as they continue their journey of service. (At the request of Mr. Rounds, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, we have had a fruitful day here today. We passed a lot of bills. We did it in a bipartisan way. I want to thank both Leader McConnell and Leader Schumer for their good work, as well as Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy for their good work on these bills. Today, I am going to do something that I have never done before. I am going to read an obituary about a man I don't believe I have ever met, even though I was in the Veterans' Home of Columbia Falls while he was there. This obituary was passed on to me by my wife, who got it from a friend. It is incredibly powerful because, quite frankly, it is about one man, but it is actually about a generation of men and women who served in Vietnam. This guy's name was William Ebeltoft. The obituary goes like this: ``Not everyone who lost his life in Vietnam died there.'' The saying is true for CW2 William C. Ebeltoft. He died on December 15, 2019 at the Veteran's Home in Columbia Falls, Montana. He died 50 years after he lost, in Vietnam, all that underpinned his life. He was 73 years old. Everyone called him ``Bill.'' He was loved by the nursing staff who cared for him. He was loved by the fellow veterans with whom he lived; those he helped when he was able and entertained with funny German slang and a stint at the piano when he could. He was a virtuoso when playing ``Waltzing Matilda.'' His small family loved him dearly. He was preceded in death by his parents, Paul and Mary Ebeltoft of Dickinson, North Dakota, whose devotion and care for their war-damaged boy was strong and unfailing. He is survived by his brother, Paul Ebeltoft, and the one he loved as the sister he never had, Paul's wife, Gail. . . . It is difficult to write about Bill. He lived three lives: before, during and after Vietnam. Before Vietnam, Bill was a handsome man, who wore clothing well; a man with white, straight teeth that showed in his ready smile. A state champion trap shooter, a low handicap golfer, a 218-average bowler, a man of quick, earthy wit, with a fondness for children, old men, hunting, fast cars, and a cold Schlitz. He told jokes well. During Vietnam, he lived with horrors of which he would only seldom speak. Slow Motion Four, Bill's personal call sign, logged thousands of helicopter flight hours performing Forward Support Base resupply landings, medical evacuations, exfils and gun ship runs. We know of him there mostly through medals for valor he received, and these were many. . . . While attempting to resupply B Company, [Warrant Officer] Ebeltoft's co-pilot became wounded. Realizing the importance of the mission WO Ebeltoft elected to attempt completion of the mission. Due to his superior knowledge of the aircraft, the helicopter was kept under control during the period in which the pilot was wounded and the ship was under fire. Remaining under attack from automatic weapons fire, the supply mission was successfully completed. While unloading the supplies, WO Ebeltoft received word that there were five emergency medical evacuation cases located 200 meters to his rear. WO Ebeltoft re-positioned his helicopter and picked up the wounded personnel. While evacuating the wounded, the commanding officer of Company B was injured. WO Ebeltoft again maneuvered his aircraft to enable evacuation of the injured officer. WO Ebeltoft then proceeded to evacuate all injured personnel by the fastest possible means. Upon completion, examination of the aircraft revealed that the aircraft had sustained nine enemy .30 caliber hits. Bill got the medal, of course, but he would have been the last to say anything about it. The citation shows the type of man that he, and many of his brothers-in-arms in Vietnam were; and still are today, albeit battered hard and unfairly by the cruel winds of the time in which they fought. After being discharged as a decorated hero, Bill had a rough re-entry into civilian life. It is not necessary to recount Bill's portion of what is an all-too-common story for wartime veterans, particularly those of the Vietnam era. It may be sufficient to say that after a run at business, a marriage and while grappling daily with his demons, his mental faculties escaped him. Bill became a resident of the Veteran's Home in Columbia Falls, Montana in 1994. He lived there for the next 26 years. At the Home, the patina of his memory covered life's sorrows, and it was a blessing. Bill was happy there, living a life that was a strange mixture of hunting stories, pickup trucks and memories of some of his better times with women, friends and the outdoor life. Bill denied that anyone he loved had died; could not understand why anyone would fill with gas at four bucks a gallon when ``Johnny's Standard sells it for 27 cents;'' and still ``drove'' his 1968 Dodge Charger. He was unfailingly courteous. His largest concerns were making his smoke breaks and finding his wallet (a search of 26 years.) In the past year, Bill's shaky grip on physical health also slipped through his fingers. Yet, despite this, what we loved in him remained, if only sometimes as a shadow. Even after his serious decline, suffering fractures because of falls, Bill would tell the staff that he was ``just fine'' and not to worry about him. Thin, hunched over, propelling himself with one foot, he would wheel himself into the room of a bed- ridden veteran and sit there, next to the bed, unspeaking. The nursing staff was certain that Bill thought that the man in bed was lonely and needed company. Bill was always a proud man, remembering himself as he was in 1969, not as he became. Who are we to suggest differently? His was not a life that many would wish for, but in some ways, Bill was a lucky man. He was surrounded to the end by staff who enjoyed and respected him. He had a chance to be helpful to others who were doing less well than he. And the passing of the seasons never diminished his plans for another elk hunt or to ``see that beautiful girl again this weekend.'' When a small slice of reality penetrated his pleasant confusion, Bill struggled to understand why he was where he was. Prematurely aged, his worldly goods in a small dresser, not knowing who the President might be or remembering why he should care, Bill's losses were greater than most of us could endure. Yet, to those who love him, his brother and his brother's wife, and their sons, he will always be a brave, accomplished man, more generous than was wise, more trusting than was safe. It is not possible to wrap your arms around a loved one who leaves. But it is possible to wrap your heart around a memory. Bill's will be well taken care of. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today because far too many of our veterans feel like they have run out of options when it comes to dealing with the physical and mental scars of war. These are folks who have served in defense of our freedoms and who often suffer tremendous invisible wounds of war. I can't tell you the number of times I have heard from men and women in uniform, in Montana and across this country, who feel helpless, and they feel as though they have been abandoned by their own country. The facts tell us that we are not doing enough here in this body to help. The reality is that our country loses as many as 20 Active-Duty or veteran servicemembers each and every day due to suicide. Regardless of political party, we can all agree that one life lost to a suicide is too many. That is why, as ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have been working with my colleagues across the aisle-- colleagues like Senator Sullivan--to make sure that our vets have the access to the help and the care they need. The bill that we are going to consider here shortly--our Support for Suicide Prevention Coordinators Act--is a bipartisan effort to help tackle the suicide epidemic by ensuring that we take a comprehensive approach to connecting veterans with urgent, lifesaving care. This bill starts by identifying and addressing staffing needs for VA employees and suicide prevention professionals who are our Nation's first line of defense when it comes to combating veteran suicide. It is clear that we have much more to do to prevent this national health epidemic, and it starts with understanding the scope of the problem. If we don't have the tools in place to take care of these folks when they return home, then, we should think twice before we send them in the first place. I urge the Senate to vote for this bill when it comes up and to get it passed out of this body quickly so the President can quickly sign it into law. It is not something that can solve our suicide problems among our veterans by itself, but it is certainly one of the tools in the toolbox that can help folks when they need help and to ensure that no veteran slips through the cracks. I want to thank the Senator from Alaska for everything he has done to make sure that this bill becomes a reality. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, it is no secret that the Senate doesn't do much around here, except for confirming judges. But looking at the records of the folks we are confirming to the Federal bench, it is clear we have forgotten even how to do that. The Founding Fathers were incredibly visionary. When they set up the Federal judiciary, they hoped to insulate it from political influence. How? By giving them lifetime appointments, with the advice and consent of the Senate. In doing so, they gave the Senators the most solemn of responsibilities we have in this body: evaluating judicial nominees on their independence, their fairness, their temperament, and their judgment. Unfortunately, these days, the Republican majority seems to have thrown qualifications out the window. Instead, they give out lifetime appointments to the court like candy. This doesn't prevent partisanship from influencing our judicial system; it ensures partisanship. The latest example is Lawrence VanDyke's nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Montana. Mr. VanDyke is a familiar face to Montanans because he grew up and attended school in the great State of Montana. He also served as Montana's solicitor general before resigning to run an unsuccessful race for the State supreme court. Montanans can separate the wheat from the chaff pretty well, and after examining his record and judgment, they found Mr. VanDyke unqualified to serve on the State's highest court. Montanans rejected him overwhelmingly at the ballot box, but now the majority leader wants to give him a lifetime seat on the bench. Once you start to dig into Mr. VanDyke's extreme record, it is not hard to see why folks in my State were concerned about his ability to be fair and independent. This is a man who believes a government should insert itself between a woman and her doctor when she is trying to make private healthcare decisions. This is a man who, as Montana's solicitor general, worked to oppose same-sex marriage and questioned the ability of same-sex partners to properly raise children. This is a man who supports opening our public lands to mining and drilling. By the way, our public lands contribute more than $7 billion to our economy. Nonetheless, open it up, drill it, and mine it. And this is a man who ridiculed Montana's deep belief that corporations are not people. He argued in favor of unchecked money flowing into our elections. He believed that corporations were people and, in fact, his race for supreme court in Montana received over $600,000 in outside spending--$170,000 from the Koch brothers alone. My guess is that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle view Mr. VanDyke's extreme positions as an asset, not an issue. They may point to the fact that he claimed he would be objective during his confirmation hearing. The fact is, we cannot trust Mr. VanDyke to put aside his past positions and give everyone who comes before his court a fair shake, to be fair and impartial. Mr. VanDyke has never been a judge, and he was rated as ``not qualified'' by the nonpartisan, nonpolitical American Bar Association. By the way, this isn't the first nominee who has come up who has been rated as ``not qualified.'' I asked a lawyer friend of mine what that means, and he said, basically, if you can't achieve a ``qualified'' rating by the American Bar Association, you are a train wreck. That is what Mr. VanDyke is. His nomination is opposed by over 200 conservation, education, civil rights, and other organizations. He is also opposed by six former Montana Supreme Court justices, folks that Montanans did elect to sit on the highest court in our State. They wrote of Mr. VanDyke: It is doubtful that he understands that judicial decisions must be based solely on the facts of the case and on the law. . . . We strongly believe that Mr. VanDyke has demonstrated that he has neither the qualifications nor the temperament to serve as a federal court of appeals judge. His coworkers from his time as Montana's solicitor general seem to agree. A former assistant attorney general who worked with VanDyke wrote privately to his colleagues: Ever since he has arrived, Mr. VanDyke has been arrogant and disrespectful to others, both in and outside of this office. He avoids work. He does not have the skills to perform, nor desire to learn how to perform, the work of a lawyer. Now that he has resigned-- That was when he resigned to run for the supreme court-- and refuses to work on cases assigned to him, while remaining on the payroll for the next several months. In fact, even Mr. VanDyke doesn't consider himself qualified to perform the basic duties of a lawyer. He once explained in an email that he has no experience in discovery, experts, stipulations, or in meeting and conferring with opposing counsel. I am no lawyer, but those sound like the tasks that someone up for a lifetime judicial appointment should know how to do. Let me put it this way. If I were looking for a contractor to do work on my farm and the contractor had these kinds of qualifications, I would not hire him for 1 minute, much less give him a job for a lifetime. I spend more time in Washington, DC, than I would like, which is how I know there is no shortage of lawyers around here and around the country. There is absolutely no reason that we can't find someone better suited to this position than Lawrence VanDyke. I know it is too much to hope that the Senate will act with as much common sense as the folks in Montana do, but I do expect us to have the decency to respect the will of Montana voters and reject Mr. VanDyke for a seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the record, to take a look at what he has done, to know it will not be a fair and impartial court if he is put on it, and I urge my colleagues to oppose his nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I will be brief. Every one of us can stand here and talk on the floor about Johnny Isakson ad nauseam. By the way, I have been watching this on TV, and I appreciate your stick-to-itiveness in your being on the floor, listening to this. You are a great man. The fact doesn't escape me that we are standing in the U.S. Senate, a body that has seen so many great Senators over the years. We can go back and have a history lesson on Clay, Calhoun, La Follette, Murray, Wheeler, Mansfield, Metcalf, and all of these folks. The truth, though, is the reason we are all here, talking today, is that Johnny Isakson is a very special guy, and he is special for a number of reasons. He treats everybody with respect, and because of that, everybody treats him with respect. His word is his bond, and his handshake is worth something in this body, which is not something you see all the time. Johnny is somebody who can get things done. I speak from experience in being the ranking member on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He has shepherded through many, many very difficult pieces of legislation, and he has done it because he has developed trust. If we ever get in a foxhole together, Johnny, I will have your back. Do you know what? I know you will have mine because you have exhibited it before. It has been such an incredible pleasure to be in this body, serving with you. You are one of those guys who doesn't have to be disagreeable, but if you disagree, you can disagree. Thank you very much. It has been a pleasure to serve with you. Godspeed to my friend Johnny Isakson. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, before I get into my comments on Agent Orange, I just want to thank Senator Moran and Senator Blumenthal for leading the charge on making sure that our Olympic athletes are protected. There are some who say that government has no business in this realm; I couldn't disagree with them more. The fact is, this is a wrong that I think Senator Moran and Senator Blumenthal have tried to right. I just want to thank them for their leadership.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I stand here today because the Trump administration continues to turn its back on our Nation's veterans, many who are suffering from illnesses relating to Agent Orange. Agent Orange is a very toxic defoliant that was used in Vietnam. Everybody who was there was exposed to it because it was used in such great volume. By denying eligibility to the folks who have suffered from that exposure the benefits and care they need, they are not doing right by our veterans. The fact is, there is no logical reason behind it except for the fact that they don't want to pay for it. They don't think the exposure to these toxic chemicals in Vietnam are a cost of war. Well, they are. Today, we are telling Acting Chief of Staff and Acting Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney and other White House officials to do their jobs and make sure these veterans are taken care of. It is time for this White House to do right by the 83,000 veterans-- that is 83,000--who are currently suffering and dying from significant health conditions associated with Agent Orange exposure. This administration--the Trump administration--needs to stop ignoring the overwhelming scientific evidence put forth by medical experts, scientists, and veterans. Internal documents obtained by a veteran through the Freedom of Information Act revealed that in 2017 President Trump's first VA Secretary, Dr. David Shulkin, tried to do right by these veterans. At that time, the VA proposed to expand the list of presumptive health conditions associated with this toxic herbicide to include bladder cancer, Parkinson's-like symptoms, and hypothyroidism so that these veterans could become eligible for the benefits they earned if they had these conditions, but Mick Mulvaney and the White House objected. They didn't want to spend the money. They said they wanted more studies-- studies that would have effectively run out the clock as more and more of these veterans suffered and died. Since then, the National Academy of Medicine found evidence that hypertension has even greater evidence of association to Agent Orange exposure than the conditions Dr. Shulkin attempted to address. Yet the White House still refuses to take care of these veterans. They refuse to expand the list to include these four conditions: parkinsonism, bladder cancer, hypertension, and hypothyroidism. More have suffered and more have died. These are Vietnam veterans who are in their sixties, seventies, and eighties. But this administration--the same folks who are quick to beg for nearly $20 billion for an ineffective border wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for and who are happy to put a $1.5 trillion tax bill on the government's credit card--refuses to recognize that this is a cost of war and that they need to do right by the Vietnam veterans--veterans who have already waited decades for the benefits and the care they desperately need. It is pretty simple. Do the right thing. If you claim to be an advocate for the veterans, no more excuses and end the wait for these veterans and their families. These veterans and their families have already sacrificed greatly, and they should not be forced to wait 1 minute longer. This issue needs to be dealt with, and it needs to be dealt with today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I have a number of things I want to talk about today. On Monday of this week, we lost a fine lady in Kay Hagan. It is very difficult for me to put into words my admiration for the Senator from North Carolina, but the fact is, Kay was the kind of person who, the first time you met her, had the ability to calm the situation down. When she was running in 2008, I went to North Carolina, and she had an event at a farm. I think it was a hog operation, if my memory serves me correctly. I had a chance to meet her for the first time. She was somebody who you knew, if she were able to get into this body, would be successful. Well, in 2008, she won that election. She came here, and she made a difference. She made a difference for working families, small businesses, and family farm agriculture. I just want to express my condolences to her husband Chip, her kids and grandkids, and let them know she was very loved by all in this body. Healthcare Madam President, I also want to rise today and speak on behalf of the thousands of Montanans who have preexisting conditions or struggle with the cost of prescription drugs. Even with the Affordable Care Act's protections, many of these folks struggle to afford their medical bills, their copays at the pharmacy counter and the local doctors' offices. Instead of working to fix these problems, this administration--the Trump administration--has issued a rule that brings us back to the dark ages by letting insurance companies discriminate against working families across Montana and this country. The Affordable Care Act guaranteed health coverage for all Americans. It required health insurance companies to issue policies to folks regardless of whether they had preexisting conditions. The Trump administration is chipping away at these laws, and they are tossing these protections out the window so that big insurance can make big bucks. Health insurance companies across this country are flooding the market with junk plans. They are called junk plans because they are cheap insurance that are junk. When you think you have health insurance and you get sick, it is not there. Trust me, I know firsthand how this works. When I was 9 years old, I lost three fingers in a meat grinder, and my folks thought they had insurance. They didn't because they had bought a junk plan. They ended up paying every dime for the surgeries related to my left hand out of their pockets--money they didn't have. These plans tell folks they have insurance, but, truthfully, they don't. They have less coverage, and they don't even cover the most essential health benefits. Need prescription drugs? You can get them, but it's going to cost you. Maternity care? Sorry, the plan doesn't cover that. Mental health? You would not get that coverage in your wildest dreams. These insurers will tell you that you are getting a great deal, but the truth of the matter is your pocketbook is going to pay the price. God forbid if you ever get in a situation where you need to use it. What we see is insurance companies lining their pockets and selling plans that do nothing. And the majority leader is working to make it easier for them to do it, all by blocking reasonable, bipartisan bills to improve the ACA and make healthcare more affordable to working families and small businesses around this country. The Senate was established by our Founders as the greatest deliberative body in the world to be a check and balance on the Office of the Presidency, the executive branch. That simply is not occurring right now. I mean take a look at the tariff situation. The President puts on tariffs in a knee-jerk reaction, doesn't bring any of our allies along. We are seeing small businesses and family farm agriculture literally being put to the point of being put out of business, and this body lets him do it. A couple of weeks ago, the President said: You know what, we are pulling our troops out of northern Syria, and to hell with our allies. The Kurds, who have been fighting with us, fighting as partners for the last 15 years, well, too bad. Done nothing. No checks and balances. The President asked for other countries to come in and influence our elections, and it seems like the Senate is just fine with that. The greatest country in the world is going to let other countries determine who is elected to our elected offices in this country, whether it be the Presidency, the Senate, or any of us. Now, we can't even pass a budget. We continue to kick the can down the road. We do have a vote on the Defense bill, which by the way, this body is going to allow the President, if the majority leader has his way, to take any amount of money they want out of that Defense bill and put it into a wall--a wall that costs $25 million to $35 million a mile--and we are not even talking about expenses down the road for upkeep. So we just deal with continuing resolutions--more uncertainty, more uncertainty for families, more uncertainty for business. So right now, we are standing by letting funding for our schools, our roads, our hospitals run out, leaving families across this country--especially in rural America and States like Montana--without resources to be able to do the job. And that is exactly the case for community health centers in this country. These facilities provide lifesaving care to nearly one-tenth of people in Montana, running 65 healthcare clinics across our State. They don't even know if they are going to have funding come November 21st when the continuing resolution we passed expires. How can we expect these places to stay open, let alone recruit and retain staff, when they don't even know if they are going to be around in another month? What do I say to folks when their own community health clinics like Hardin, or Libby, or Haver--these communities rely on these health clinics to keep their communities healthy. And quite frankly, because we can't sit down and negotiate and come up with long- term funding agreements, they potentially are going to be out of business. But the uncertainty for families doesn't start there. The number of kids who don't have insurance has gone up since this administration started its war on healthcare. Kids in Montana are getting the worst of it. The number of kids in my State without insurance went up 25 percent between 2016 and 2018. Let me say that again. The number of kids in the State of Montana without insurance went up 25 percent between 2016 and 2018. That is the fifth highest percentage jump in the United States. There are places worse. The kids being hit hardest are the kids that are in the most vulnerable groups. They are in Indian Country, which continues to have the highest uninsured rate in this country. These young folks are our future leaders. They are our next generation. We are not doing our job. We are failing them. This coordinated sabotage of our healthcare system by this administration and this body is unacceptable, and our children deserve better. I am not going to sit here and tell you that the Affordable Care Act was perfect. I said from day one that we needed to work together to make improvements and build upon the successes that were in that bill. The ACA allowed States like Montana to pass Medicaid Expansion. That insured more than 90,000 Montanans in the process and helped greatly toward keeping our small hospitals open. It helped millions of Montanans with preexisting conditions rest easy at night knowing that they were not going to be kicked off their plans because of that preexisting condition or hit an annual cap on care. All of that is gone. Americans have spoken clearly. They want more access to affordability, not less. When my colleagues on the other side of the aisle attempted to repeal the ACA a couple of years ago, folks all across this country stood up and said: No. But here we are again, watching the majority and the Trump administration pushing plans to rip away affordable health insurance from hardworking Americans. I would encourage my colleagues to join together in working and find a bipartisan solution to improve our healthcare system. We need to reduce health insurance premiums and out- of-pocket costs. We need to crack down on skyrocketing prescription drugs, and we need to expand insurance to more Americans. We need to make sure that when people put their hard-earned money on the line to buy an insurance policy, that it is not junk. Congratulating the Washington Nationals Mr. President, now, on a lighter subject. Back in my early years on the farm, I would come in on Wednesday night and there would be baseball night in Canada. I got to watch the Montreal Expos for a couple of decades play some pretty darned good baseball. They didn't win, but they were very entertaining. That franchise moved to Washington, DC, I think in 2006, the same year I got elected to the United States Senate. So consequently, I got to watch the Nats and be entertained by them again--occasionally, even in person. Last night, they did the impossible. After being 19 and 31, I believe around the 23rd, 24th of May of this year, they ripped off a hundred games and won the World Series. I just want to congratulate them on that feat and look forward to a repeat next season. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, we all returned to Washington last week after, in my case, spending 5 weeks in the State of Montana. It is always great being in Montana, being able to get around the State and visit with folks and see the challenges they are dealing with on a daily basis and hear directly from them. I can tell you that one of the things I heard a lot about--Montana is an ag State--was the price of grain and the price of cattle. The marketplace is very, very depressed. It doesn't matter that Montana is a big State, and it doesn't matter what corner of the State you are in. We have some challenges, and those challenges have been brought about by really, really bad public policy when it comes to tariffs. These tariffs have increased the price of steel, for example, which increases the price of the equipment that folks in agriculture and everybody have to buy. On the other side of the coin, because of the tariffs that are put on ag commodities, it has driven all ag commodities down. The tariffs on soy, for example, have driven all the commodities down, including wheat, which we raise a lot of in Montana, but also pulse crops and everything. In fact, when I was determining what we were going to plant this spring, I was trying to find what we could make money off of. Quite frankly, commodity prices are down across the board, and there wasn't anything that you could turn a profit on. I don't say that being a farmer who wants to complain about prices, because we do that occasionally. I say that because the price of hard red ordinary winter wheat, which probably doesn't mean much to anybody unless you are in agriculture, is about the same price it was in about May of 1978, when I took the farm over. That is not inflation-adjusted prices. That is what it is selling for, a little over $3.50 a bushel. If you take a look back at 1978, it doesn't take a nuclear physicist to figure out that things cost a little less back then. You could buy a car for probably about 15 percent of what you are paying for one now, and farm equipment was the same way. It was far, far, far less expensive. My dad bought a brand-new four-wheel drive tractor, for example, 3 years earlier, in 1975. He paid about $20,000 for it, and today that tractor would run you north of $200,000. So we have a lot of challenges out there, and it all starts with the price of ag commodities. It isn't like Mother Nature frowned on us all and put us into a drought or put a hailstorm on us or put locusts on us. It is all man-made. I think most people in this body would tell you that, as to what is going on with China right now, even though China does need to be held accountable, we can't do it alone. We have to bring our allies in. That is why it is not working, and that is why ag commodity prices are in the tank. So why should anybody care if you are not involved in agriculture? There was an old bumper sticker that was on cars a few decades ago that said: If you eat, you are involved in agriculture. That is a fact. If you want to talk about things like food security and being able to have food on the shelves, those family farmers are critically important. If you force them out of business, that is more consolidation, that is less people living in rural America, and that is a problem, and it is less certainty with our food supply. We feed the world for a good reason--because there are a lot of family farmers out there who work very, very hard each and every day, and we overproduce, and the overproduced items need to be exported. If they are not, the prices go down. That is what we see right now. We see overproduction, because we produce food, and if that food is not exported, the prices go down, and they go down and they go down. Now they are prices that we had 40 years ago. Now, this administration's solution for this problem is to borrow money from our kids and write farmers checks. I don't know a farmer out there who wants to go down to the local FSA, or the Farm Service Agency, government office and get a check. We do it, but that is not the preferred place. The preferred place is from the grain elevator or from the livestock auction. But because prices are so low, now farmers have to have a bailout. People talk about socialism and who is advocating for socialism around here, but the fact is that this is pretty much socialistic. The sad part is that the amount farmers are getting is probably about a tenth, once again, of what they are losing in the marketplace, if we had trade, if we were out promoting trade, and if we were moving the ball forward to get rid of the excess production. But instead, it is tariff after tariff after tariff because we are trying to teach somebody a lesson. Unfortunately, because we don't have our allies onboard with us, we haven't seen much success. We have a problem. The forefathers set forth three coequal branches of government. Unfortunately, I have been a bit frustrated because the legislative branch hasn't been able to do much about these tariffs, and we need to reinsert ourselves. I have a bill that I intend to drop in very soon that will empower the legislative branch. Hopefully, we can get it through committee and get it to the floor. It seems that we always ask permission of the administration as to whether we are going to take up any bills on the floor in this body, the greatest deliberative body--it used to be; it is not anymore--when, in fact, we need to take back the power. We need to hold the administration, the executive branch--whether there is a Democrat in the White House or a Republican in the White House-- accountable on these issues that revolve around trade. It is important because we are having a debate right now about whether we should be just a rubberstamp for the executive branch on appropriations. We have given away our power on trade. It is our job to deal with issues of trade. I am talking about Congress's job. I have a bill to bring back some of that power. I will tell you, I hope that tomorrow all these tariffs and trade issues go away. I don't think that is realistic. In fact, I think we have seen a lot of our foreign trading partners that were traditionally our partners turn to other countries to get their products. I think that is a problem long term and certainly a problem short term because we are feeling it in the short term. When they start getting their ag commodities from Australia and Argentina or some other country, it is hard to get those customers back, even when the trade agreements have been ratified. I ask the executive branch to quit playing games with American agriculture. I know that most of the farmers support the Trump administration, but I am telling you, we saw a mass exodus off the farms in the 1980s--the family farm agriculture--because of bad policies, due in part to this town, and I am afraid we are going to see that again. I have already seen it in my neighborhood, and I think it is just the start. It is time that we start to do what we do; that is, we need to export some of this product. The Farmers Union was in last week, and one of the people in the Farmers Union, from the Montana group, said: What do we do about the excess supply? Well, what we do with the excess supply is what we have always done with the excess supply: We ship it out. We export it. And when those exports dry up, we have wheat. We can't get rid of soy. Corn is in a pinch. As I said earlier, all ag commodities are depressed. While we sit here and talk about the important stuff that we talk about, just know that the American farmer, the family farmer, is hurting. I will tell you that one thing that made this country great is family farm agriculture. If it gets consolidated, whether it is a family who owns tens of thousands of acres or controls tens of thousands of acres or whether it is a corporation, it is the same thing. You have nobody living in rural America, and it impacts our food security in this country. Quite frankly, it is very bad for democracy. I invited the President to come to Montana to visit with the producers so he could hear it from their mouths. I haven't gotten a response. The bottom line is, he needs to know that rural America is not New York City. It has challenges, and if we don't do our job and get products exported, we are going to see it change, we are going to see it dry up, and we are literally going to see it blow away. It is not a step forward. It is not making this country great. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. I hope the President comes to Montana. I hope he visits with the producers. He will find a friendly crowd. I think most of them voted for him. He will be able to hear from the horse's mouth what is happening with trade and hopefully get these trade tariffs and all the things around trade that have been negative for family farm agriculture put behind us. I think time is of the essence. It may be too late for a lot of folks. We may see a lot of good operators no longer able to make a living in agriculture. Time is of the essence. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.